Search engines can account for up to 80% of website
traffic. Having a beautiful site is important but without
the traffic there is no one to appreciate it and
consequently NO BUSINESS.
Indexing with the search engines seems as simple as filling
in the blanks but getting good positi
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:42:31 -0400
Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 05:21:19PM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>> One question: should Mailman support doing an (optional)
>> auto-kvetch back to the site's postmaster?
> Two words: "Sorcerer's Apprentice".
Limit
On Monday, June 18, 2001, at 02:42 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 05:21:19PM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>> One question: should Mailman support doing an (optional) auto-kvetch
>> back to the site's postmaster?
>
> Two words: "Sorcerer's Apprentice".
>
treat them as hard
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 05:21:19PM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> One question: should Mailman support doing an (optional) auto-kvetch
> back to the site's postmaster?
Two words: "Sorcerer's Apprentice".
Cheers,
-- jr 'IE: "no" :-)' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth
> "CG" == Carson Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CG> So we converted the firewalls mailing list to mailman, and
CG> we're now being inundated by bounce messages that mailman
CG> isn't handling. I'm going to write bounce modules for the
CG> actual bounces, but I can't figur
So we converted the firewalls mailing list to mailman, and we're now being
inundated by bounce messages that mailman isn't handling. I'm going to
write bounce modules for the actual bounces, but I can't figure out how to
handle non-fatal errors (message could not be delivered, will retry soon,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 09:48:52AM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > If you're talking about generic large mail farms, Chuq, you
> > *really* need to go find the Earthlink white paper on that and
> > read it, if you haven't already. They have one on news, too.
> > Don't recall the URL; Ask The Web.
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:57:20 -0400
Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 09:53:28AM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>> But what I've found, for really large e-mail installations,
>> there's always another bottleneck. The bigger/faster machine
>> paradigm just doesn't
> > It reduces A LOT the disk problems (mostly mailqueue becoming very
> > heavy) -- maybe I should continue this way with more domains being
> > handled to slave machine(s).
>
> Did you have any automated way to collect and maintain the slow MX
> list? One thing I never did was to implement a
On 17 Jun 2001 09:22:40 -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
> I suspect Nigel Metherington is going to chime in here,
Definitely - you mispelt my name - I *hate* that :-)
Seriously, I've just come back to this fresh and its a big chunk to
take in at one reading. What I will do is take a weeks logs from
10 matches
Mail list logo
