>>>>> "DW" == Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com> writes:
DW> [ Jerry Peek writes: ]
>> The way the FAQ describes makes more sense to me, Dave. I think it
>> would be confusing for a user who's subscribed to a list to send a
>> "lists" command and have Majordomo not return the name of their list.
DW> I agree. Maybe whoever made that change will own up to it and offer
DW> some justification?
It was taken out very early. The earliest 1.94 I keep open is alpha6, and
it was out before then. This brings it back, I think (against 1.94.1 +
local stuff; line numbers may not match up):
--- majordomo.orig Mon Jan 20 15:22:12 1997
+++ majordomo Mon Jan 20 15:23:09 1997
@@ -1225,6 +1225,8 @@
}
}
+ $result = &is_list_member($reply_to, $listdir, $list)
+ if ! $result;
printf REPLY " %-23s %-.56s\n", $list,
$config_opts{$list, 'description'} if $result;
In my 2.0 work I have come to the conclusion that the lists command is by
far the most expensive of all of the Majordomo core commands. It touches
every config file, does an access check for every list and will possibly
search through every membership list, expecially with that extra stuff that
Oliver added to show lists that the requester is subscribed to and such.
That's rather amazing given that in its simplest form it's a directory
listing.
Things like databases somewhat speed up list membership checking, but you
still have to load and parse each config file. My new-style config files
are about three times faster to load but there's still a bunch of
information there. (The logging suite I use comes from TLB; you get
timings of everything down to hundredths of a second.) I'm considering
having Majordomo maintain a separate file containing descriptions for the
lists that don't have any special advertise restrictions. This would speed
up lists output quite a bit.
- J<
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
