Re: [sysadmins] List moderation - need a break!

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, as Dave said earlier: everything about the email handling is
>>> deeply integrated in the hub.org systems.
>>
>> No it isn't ... when the VPS was first setup, the agreement was that
>> someone was going to setup spamassassin on it as a failback mechanism in
>> case of any problems with the central spamassassin ... to the best of my
>> knowledge, nobody has done that ...
>
> That's not what we're talking about.
>
>
>> Mail going out from Majordomo is set to go out three different MX
>> servers so that they are spread across three postfix queues instead of
>> bottlenecking into one ... there is nothing 'deeply integrated' there,
>> its a performance thing that can be simply removed by doing:
>
> Again, that's not what people are talking about. That is the one part of
> the system that usually works. Even if it would've been nice to have the
> thing documented, as has been requested for years, rather than to have
> to go to the list archives.
>
> It's the incoming mail, an the maia integration, that is the reason for
> almost every single instance of our lists not working every now and
> then. It may very well be that a community maintained system would have
> the exact same issues, but it would have more people who could look at it.
>
>
>>  mj_shell -p XXXX configedit DEFAULT delivery_rules
>>
>> A command there there are several admins on the list capable of doing ...
>>
>> Even the spamassassin stuff is easily disabled by a simple modification
>> to the postfix main.cf file to remove the content_filter and sqlgrey
>> lines .. nothing "deeply integrated" there either, the processing is
>> just offloaded to a different physical server ...
>>
>> If you don't *understand* how things are setup, don't jump to the
>> falsely represented it as 'deeply integrated', as there is nothing
>> integrated with anything Hub related, only stuff piggy backing off of,
>> and those things are be very easily detached ...
>
> Then why has this not happened since it has been requested for *years*?
>
> But you're now saying you're Ok to decouple it? Rather than the usual
> "never going to happen"? That's good news, indeed.
>
> Is the same true for DNS?

I notice that this thread seems to have died an abrupt death, but
without really resolving any of the issues.

...Robert