On 3 Mar 1997, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
:) n> what I mean is I don't *want* to approve bulky messages; the users of my
:) n> lists have no business sending .jpg pictures of their girlfriends, 5000
:) n> line IRC logs of them netsexing various IRC operators, etc...
:) So you can guarantee that there will never be a legitimate message on your
:) list that exceeds the size limit? I think that's an extremely rare case.
The main list in question is email@example.com, which is the mailing
list for the Undernet #teen operators'. I was frequently bombarded with,
as I believe I mentioned, bounces from Majordomo's resend informing me
that X #teen op tried to send Y.jpg, being a picture of their latest
girlfriend, or a picture of their girlfriend's cheerleeding team, with
their girlfriend circled in a blue line, or their girlfriend ... etc. I
also noticed that pine does not handle those large emails (it doesn't
treat the original attachment as an attachment, and thus loads it into its
internal message editor along with the rest of the message, because the
headers telling pine that the message was a multipart MIMEncoded message
was located within the Bounced Headers section of the bounce, instead of
the actual headers for the message) very well, and it takes me several
minutes before I can send any commands in (as it's presumably loading the
file[s] into RAM) and then several more minutes after I hit the [d]elete
key for it to go away. On top of that, although I have $mailer set to use
/etc/sendmail-lists.cf, which specifies a SmartHost (mail.uu.net),
$bounce_mailer simply uses /etc/sendmail-users.cf (sending mail directly
to the remote users is inherently faster than sending it first to a
smarthost, and from there to the user, if there aren't too many
recipients), so each and every member (all 4 of them) of teenops-owner
receives a copy of the message, and thus I have to send that large file
out 3 times.
To me, seeing as how this is supposed to be a discussion related list (I
just set up a firstname.lastname@example.org for the chit-chat that was inhabitting
teenops because people were getting pissed) about #teen issues, I'd think
any message exceeding the 40000 byte max size limit that was a legitimate
post would be an extremely rare case.
:) n> however in my case, I never want to approve those messages; if I did,
:) n> I'd up the maxlength setting in the .config, no?
:) You're being short-sighted. I have small limits for messages on my lists.
:) A few times a week I get a message that is bounced to me that is over the
:) limit but which should be sent. I send it. The purpose for the size limit
:) is not to set an absolute maximum, but to set a threshold over which the
Whatever the official "purpose" is, (which, as stated, is "The maximum
size of an unapproved message in characters," which doesn't clear that
issue up too much) I use it to be the maximum size of any post sent to
this list in characters.
:) list owner should be consulted. Nothing in Majordomo (except perhaps
:) majordomo_dont_reply, for obvious reasons) drops anything in the trash
:) without consulting the list owner. That is part of the way Majordomo is
:) designed to work, and there are very good reasons for that behavior.
I appreciate those safeguards, however, I wish to alter the one in
particular for my purposes.
:) n> for email...?
:) Yes, for email. You are corresponding with a group of people who are here
:) because they enjoy working on software. I don't think anyone reading
:) majordomo-workers enjoys wading through a badly written message. You should
:) spend time composing messages so that others do not have to spend
:) inordinate amounts of time reading them. I generally just ignore badly
:) written messages, and I suspect that most others here do also. Pretend
:) you're writing a newspaper article that others will read.
Well, seeing as how I have never written a newspaper article, and that the
average reading level for a newspaper article is around 5th grade, I'd
hope I could do a little better than that =)
I'm sorry if my previous posts were vulgar to your eyes.
:) n> <sigh> isn't there any way for me to change my resend Perl script to
:) n> behave my way, which "is under no circumstances" good behaviour, except
:) n> under my circumstances?
:) Yes, there is. Find the point in resend where the message is bounced due
:) to size limits and call a different bounce routine. It shouldn't be all
:) that difficult to code up. Of course, you will want to add a configuration
:) variable, lest you force every list at your site to behave that way.
As I previously stated:
my solution would be to copy the bounce subwhatever into a bounce-bulk
subwhatever, and change the call for excessive body size from &bounce to
&bounce-bulk--except that there *is* no apparent call for &bounce anywhere
near it (from what I can see, it calls a sub by the name of the bounce
reason, which makes *no* sense to me, but then again I'm not all that
proficient in Perl)
So, I guess I must admit that I simply am not good enough at programming
in Perl to accomplish this feet.
Daniel Reed <email@example.com>
A friend of mine once sent me a post card with a picture of the entire planet Earth taken from space. On the back it said, "Wish you were here."