On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:42:04AM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvaro Herrera) writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>
> >> >If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam
> >> >checks and just let it all go through thoug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvaro Herrera) writes:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> >If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
>> >just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*
>>
>> Would not bother me in the least. I have prote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> 5. Some while later (usually several days, which means that Marc is
>badly overworked :-(), the original question gets approved and
>we see a duplicate appearing on the list.
The several days should be a thing of the past now. Most queues
Tom Lane wrote:
That won't do, as some other folks noted. But what I'd really like to
see is a hack that, when someone subscribes to a list, goes through the
moderator queue and auto-approves any pending messages from that
someone.
If it's possible, cool. What I have seen from other mailing l
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
> not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
> It would take some load off of the system and the moderaters.
That won't do, as some other folks note
I've forwarded this onto the Mj2 Developers ... it might even be doable
now, they've built a, at times, painfully configurable system ...
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
> >just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*
>
> Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
> sure most others do as w
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 06:01:23PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Yup, did a bunch of work on it last night ... identified some 'out of
> whack' processes that were hogging a bit more CPU then they should, and
> moved them ... its part of some ongoing work I've been doing to clean
> things up
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 15:01:25 -0700,
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
It would take some l
"Dave Page" writes:
>> So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?
> Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
> spam (iirc).
Yesterday's problem seemed to be av.hub.org; svr1 was pretty nearly idle
as far as I could tell. I don't have a login o
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 15:01:25 -0700,
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
> not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
> It would take some load off of the system and the moderate
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks
and just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*
Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
sure most others do as well.
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*
Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am sure
most others do as well. :)
Remembering back to t
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
As a couple of ppl have found out by becoming 'moderators' for the mailing
lists, there are *alot* of messages through the server that aren't list
subscribers, but are legit emails ...
Perhaps that shouldn't be allowed
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
As a couple of ppl have found out by becoming 'moderators' for the
mailing lists, there are *alot* of messages through the server that
aren't list subscribers, but are legit emails ...
Perhaps that shouldn't be allowed? Would it help things if all
non-subscriber ema
If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*
Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
sure most others do as well. :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Marc G. Fournier Hub
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?
Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
spam (iirc).
Does it scan every single incomming email?
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 August 2005 21:46
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 200
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
The long and short is I have never understood why it takes so long for
posts to show up.
I'm looking into that one right now ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yaho
"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails
typicall pass through a box at
commandprompt.com, so the argument
holds while the example was broken.
There are a few distribution servers,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?
>
> Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
> spam (iirc).
Does it scan every single incomming email? It might make more sense to
have the
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 August 2005 21:24
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
>
> So I take it the bo
IL PROTECTED]>,
> "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
>
> > Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails
> > typicall pass through a box at
> > commandprompt.com, so the argument
> > holds while the example wa
Eh. That would be me looking at the mail that didn't pass the listserver
:-)
Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails typicall pass through a box at
commandprompt.com, so the argument holds while the example was broken.
Well one thing I can tell you is that it definately appears as if the
ma
-Original Message-
From: "Magnus Hagander"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 25/08/05 19:36:51
To: "Jim C. Nasby"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff
> > > Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect
> we could
> > > easily get donations to improve things.
> >
> > IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
> > donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just
> move freebsd
> > VMs across, whi
> > > > Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect
> > we could
> > > > easily get donations to improve things.
> > >
> > > IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth
> on the box
> > > donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just
> > move freebsd
> > >
> -Original Message-
> From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:31 PM
> To: Jim Nasby
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
>
>
> > > > Well, if ha
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we
> > could easily get donations to improve things.
>
> IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
> donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we
> > could easily get donations to improve things.
>
> IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
> donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so
> Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we
> could easily get donations to improve things.
IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just move freebsd
VMs across, which is why it's only used as a we
Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we could
easily get donations to improve things.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:39:23PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> tom pointed it out to me a little while ago ... am looking into why, but
> I'm also just finishing putting together a n
tom pointed it out to me a little while ago ... am looking into why, but
I'm also just finishing putting together a new server to speed things up
some more yet ...
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Don't know if anyone else has noticed, but cvsweb is a bit slow right
now and mailing
33 matches
Mail list logo
