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

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 17:04, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>

Yes. This is pretty much standard.

-- Magnus HaganderSelf: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/