Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

2009-06-28 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> I'm working on a cronjob already which is able to read the data from the NM >> database and will send out such mails to -project. It will rely on the fact >> that >> new DDs should receive an account on merkel. > > Why dont you just use ldap and not rely on something unsta

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

2009-06-28 Thread Joerg Jaspert
> I'm working on a cronjob already which is able to read the data from the NM > database and will send out such mails to -project. It will rely on the fact > that > new DDs should receive an account on merkel. Why dont you just use ldap and not rely on something unstable like the assumption that

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

2009-06-28 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said: >> Don Armstrong wrote: >>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it doesn't

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

2009-06-28 Thread Michael Banck
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:00:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 02:04:34AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > > > > Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO. > > > Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point o

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

2009-06-28 Thread Peter Palfrader
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said: > > Don Armstrong wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > > >> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in > > >> these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks an

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

2009-06-28 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said: > Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > >> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in > >> these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it > >> doesn't register at all with m