On 7 Nov 1996, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> 2. It's hard to do this without limiting proper use. I suspect that my
> frequent messages to majordomo-users would get flagged as a loop.
> Extending thins to have a list of addresses which aren't flagged as
> loops just bloats the whole thing even more. A simple n messages per
> day or 1 message per n minutes is simply not good enough.
Agreed. I never suggested this though.
> 3. Storing and checking state is expensive. Think of large lists with lots
> of contributors. Now you have to a bunch of extra file operations for
> every message. People already say that Majordomo has too much overhead.
Possibly another reason to have a daemon which might be able to handle
this.
> This is a tough problem. Try to think about the boundary cases, not just
> small lists with few subscribers and low traffic.
Agreed, it is a tough problem. Could you think of a way to do it if we had
a daemon?
If a daemon is in store for 2.0, it might just be worth it to put it off
until then. Majordomo has definetly come to the point where it is being
heavily used and is facing problems and situations it never had to contend
with. The big leagues are here...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brock Rozen | brozen@webdreams.com | http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
