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
-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
[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 protective
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 though ... *evil
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 web
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 you
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 you
-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 hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect
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
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
-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.orgpgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow
Picking one that does, thouhg
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
: 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, another of which is the Pervasive box.
So I take it the bottleneck
-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 bottleneck is the box running
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
@postgresql.orgpgsql-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, another of which is the Pervasive box.
So
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]
-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, 2005 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Dave Page
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
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
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
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
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
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, 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 moderaters.
Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk 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
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 load
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, 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 well. :)
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
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 noted.
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
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 new
33 matches
Mail list logo
