Barry,
This guy (see forwarded message) is using a Challenge Response Authentication Program (CRAP - appropriate acronym) on stuff he is receiving using a mailing list. Unfortunately its broken enough that the replies are going back to the original poster. Can you terminate him (or just remove his list membership).
If possible I'd mod Mailman to make it extremely unfriendly to such programs, unfortunately this one is so completely broken that just kicking the idiot off the list is the only appropriate response.
[BTW I haven't replied with the magic token since there is nothing civil I could say to him - shame the system won't automatically block any mail he tries to send me]
Nigel.-----Forwarded Message-----
From: CARTER Anthony a.carter@intrasoft.lu To: Nigel.Metheringham@dev.InTechnology.co.uk Subject: Re: Re: [Mailman-Developers] sleep() after sending a chunk? (Spam Ender: BLOCKED 1R92-SE45602-Nigel.Metheringham@dev.InTechnology.co.uk) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:58:20 +0200
In an effort to eliminate unsolicited e-mail, I have installed SpamEnder. Please REPLY to this e-mail, without modifying the subject line, so that I can receive your original message. Upon my approval, future e-mails you send to me will be released automatically. If you do not REPLY to this e-mail, SpamEnder will block all future e-mails from this address and will not give you another opportunity to reply.
Sorry for any inconvenience. Anthony Carter
I'd really love to add somme sleep() function just after the deliveryfunc() call, something that would set Mailman to sleep about 1/10th of a second
Excerpt from original message: On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 17:39, Fil wrote: per
recipient.
I just don't see the point of this. You may have stopped a large list inject being so aggressive on CPU usage, but you have increased the lifetime of processes by a factor of 30 or so (on your figures), and so increased the memory pressure and likelihood of swapping etc due to processes being just as fat but lasting longer.
Your users may notice the big lists getting much slower - and having deliveries smeared over a much longer period.
You may find you have made things less efficient by having 2 deliveries to a single list slowed down so that different messages to the same recipient can no longer be put in the same SMTP session (if your MTA does that). For that matter can multiple deliveries be made against the same list at the same time?
Why not just run the cron jobs under nice instead?
Nigel.
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.co.uk ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]