On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 17:57 -0400, Jerrale G wrote: > > On 10/7/2010 8:16 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > fts = squat > > > > I'm probably talking out of the wrong hole again - but have you tried > > removing squat from your plugin list to see if it makes a difference? > Daniel Miller, > > Please do not get all defensive when someone asks why they're having > performance issues. You act like he said "Because of dovecot, i'm having > POP3 or IMAP performance problems". He only said he noticed a change > since going to 2.0.5. You could have suggested to try disabling all the > plugins and then enabling each one until he notices a huge performance > decrease, using whatever he was using to benchmark, instead of > ignorantly implying he should have already known to do so. I don't think he got all defensive, I don't believe he implied anything, and I don't think his reply was in any wrong. As I understand it, it was a gut feeling of his, and turned out to be the issue indeed. (As confirmed a while ago.) Granted, I mostly lurk here only, and deleted most of this thread already, but from memory... Jerrale, dude, you got all defensive. I don't know who is the author of the squat fts, and I am too lazy to look it up. But unless you are, I don't really understand your screaming ATTN attribution on-list in the first place. Anyway, I don't feel like a flame war. I will try not to contribute to this thread any further. However, David, err, Daniel -- don't feel bad. I did not understand your comment offensive in any way, and I believe the guys originally involved did neither. This was a strange (sub)thread to read indeed. Back to my recording. -- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}