From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 00:09:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA26111 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:55:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA26104 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA03415 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:54:58 -0800 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0) id AA16898; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:54:57 -0800 Message-Id: <199612010754.AA16898@waltz.rahul.net> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris In-Reply-To: <199611291557.HAA28092@miles.greatcircle.com> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 96 23:54:56 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > > But it doesn't offer any speed-up, since you need to resend the entire > message data every time, ie MAIL FROM, RCPT, DATA, MAIL, RCPT, DATA and > so forth. It also means Lyris will require significantly more bandwidth > than competing products. Quite. I am currently moving my mailing list of 3200 subscribers (3100 of them on the daily digest version which is typically 40k in size) to my own machine (an overpowered P166) to reduce load on my previous host site. I am paying for a dedicated 28.8kpbs link and have permission to use the host site as a mail relay. I've been experimenting with various MTAs and tried qmail, which is incapable of multiple RCPTS but has other good features. I did a test, sending out 40k message to all 3200 subscribers. One pass through the addresses took 8.5 hours, totally tying up the 28.8 line at full bandwidth. About 200 addresses were queued for resending. I switched to exim (another MTA) which does multiple RCPTS and used my relay host. Transit time over my link: 15 minutes. I was able to do other ppp activity over my line during this 15 minutes. Perfect bounce processing is a worthy goal (though I would personally chose qmail's envelope from encoding over To: header rewriting). I use Smartlist for precisely this reason: it handles about 95% of the bounces automatically. In my case, using a product which handled this remaining 5% is not worth 34+ times as much bandwidth usage. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 02:39:51 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id CAA00648 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 02:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from izzy4.izzy.net (izzy4.izzy.net [198.108.102.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id CAA00641 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 02:36:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from UUatbbs@localhost) by izzy4.izzy.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) id FAA10257 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:32:37 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: izzy4.izzy.net: UUatbbs set sender to atbbs!dbsmith using -f >Received: by atbbs.com (0.99.960714) id AA00720; 01 Dec 96 05:35:39 -0500 From: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) Date: 01 Dec 96 00:05:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris Message-ID: References: <199612010409.UAA21529@miles.greatcircle.com> Organization: American Tune BBS To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "F>> from the quill of "Roger B.A. Klorese" on scroll "F>> <3.0.1.32.19961127214640.026f3448@pop.queernet.org> "F>> > Whether or not you agree with it, the logic is: you are LICENSING (not "F>> > purchasing) tools for the accomplishment of benefit to you. The "F>> > licensor has the right to derive more benefit when the licensor does. "F>> "F>> Because I bought a bigger machine (had to pay for the extra resource), "F>> capable of doing more/bigger lists that somehow reflects on how much more "F>> the software has delivered me. The software is doing exaclty what it was "F>> when I had 3 lists, my hardware just got bigger and able to handle more "F>> lists/users. "F>> "F>> b. "F>Scaling up isn't always simply a matter of purchasing more powerful "F>hardware. Sometimes improved algorithms are needed. And I don't "F>think it makes sense to expect a software developer to implement "F>two versions of a product just so a less functional one can be "F>sold for less. But that's not the question. You have two different customers, buying exactly the same product. One is paying less money. The other is paying more money for the same product, -because- they also paid more money for hardware, more money for connections to the Net, and so on. But the product is -exactly- the same. Why should the customer who more heavily uses the product subsidise the smaller user? If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the product paying Y? ___ X SLMR 2.1a X No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway. -- >> David B. Smith Email sysop@atbbs.com, dbsmith@izzy.net >> Sysop, American Tune BBS "The cure for all the ills of Democracy >> is more Democracy!" -- NY Gov. Al Smith >> >> My views are sometimes not even my own, much less anyone else's. >> My employers don't necessarily speak for me, either, 'natch. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 05:24:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA03549 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:10:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id FAA03542 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:10:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612011310.FAA03542@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <8.CC6F7496@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 14:09:58 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4770; Sun, 01 Dec 96 14:03:27 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 3918; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 14:03:27 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:55:09 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris To: brian@ilinx.ilinx.com, rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, Roger Fajman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:08:51 EST from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 23:08:51 EST Roger Fajman said: >Scaling up isn't always simply a matter of purchasing more powerful >hardware. Sometimes improved algorithms are needed. To illustrate this point, here are performance figures from the three versions of LISTSERV (Lite, Classic and High Performance) for the so-called "biglist" test suite. This creates a list with 100,000 subscribers and a request from its list owner to add 1,000 subscribers to it. The timing is from the first to last lines of code in the ADD command, ie this includes command parsing, privilege/password checks, RFC822 parsing (for the individual name/address pairs, which can be specified in any valid RFC822 format), time to perform alias hostname checks, and so forth. However, the time to process the incoming mail message and decide that it is an ADD request from JOE@FOO.COM is not counted. I ran the test on my PC (P90 with 32M), since this is not for a press release or the like I didn't bother to close other applications and so on. Similarly, I extrapolated the Classic and Lite figures from smaller runs because I don't have all day. +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ | | ELAPSED time | ELAPSED time | Users added | Ratio of CPU | | Version | (1000 users) | (per user) | per second | to elapsed | +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ | Lite | 2h 4m 23s | 7.47 sec | 0.13 | 31.6% | +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ | Classic | 27m 13s | 1.63 sec | 0.61 | 43.5% | +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ | HPO | 0.44 sec | 0.00044 sec | 2264.15 | 79.1% | +---------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+ The Lite version uses the same data format as the other versions (to facilitate migration) but treats the files as flat, plain text files. It's a bit like reading a database sequentially until you've found what you're looking for, as opposed to searching for it directly. At 7.5 sec for an ADD to a list of 100k subscribers, it is probably in the same league as the compiled freebies, possibly somewhat faster. You can buy the Lite version and run a list of that size with it, and we don't mind at all. But you're going to have to put very serious money on the table to get a machine big enough to give you decent numbers here. Upgrading to an infinitely fast CPU would offer a 31% speedup. This algorithm is I/O bound and takes about 1-2 seconds of development time (plus implementation of course). Note that the 7.5 sec result already includes a large read cache, provided automatically by NT (any free RAM is used as a file cache until a better use is found). The Classic version uses the traditional LISTSERV algorithms to manipulate the data files. At 1.6 sec it should outperform all freebies and most commercial products. The difference is actually much bigger on systems which don't implement such a huge file cache. That is, the difference may not be enormous on NT, but it used to be much bigger at the time these algorithms were designed. Quite a lot of thinking went into them, and the actual implementation was also optimized. The algorithm is only 43% CPU bound because the goal was to reduce CPU usage, not I/O, since on mainframes people are traditionally billed based on the amount of CPU time they have used. Saving I/O reduces the number of system calls and thus saves CPU cycles, but this was not the primary goal. Again you are welcome to buy a Classic license and a big machine to run a list of this size. 1.6 sec per ADD may very well be sufficient for your needs, present and projected. But quite a number of customers needed a faster system, so we developed one. It was a LOT of work, but it allowed people to do what they needed to do using standard PC hardware. Even on a P90 with 32M you can add 2200 users per second, and this process is mostly CPU bound (95% CPU bound if I include the cycles the system spends performing I/O on the application's behalf). Which is not really surprising since every individual address needs to be parsed, and the figures are for the total elapsed command processing time, not just for the act of adding an address to the database or whatever you want to call it. Why should you pay more for the High Performance version, which is otherwise identical to the Classic version? Simply because the overwhelming majority of customers couldn't care less how well the product performs with lists of that size. We would never have developed and tested these algorithms if we had had to sell the resulting product at the normal price. In the end the interested parties would have bought $200k+ in hardware to get acceptable results with Classic, or someone else would have made a high performance list manager for this niche market, and would have charged according to the number of customers, ie pretty much what we're charging for the High Performance version. We decided that it would be stupid not to grab that market as well, so we developed the High Performance version, but we really see it as a separate product addressing very different needs. Eric From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 05:54:59 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA04286 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.ecentral.com ([204.227.4.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id FAA04272 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 05:54:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from 204.227.4.38 (ppp18.ecentral.com [204.227.4.38]) by www.ecentral.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA00253 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 06:53:37 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32A18EDE.561F@ecentral.com> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 06:57:50 -0700 From: Cindy Stanley Reply-To: connect@ecentral.com Organization: Unschooling List X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Questionable Address? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi all, I just received this notification from Majordomo: > Steve Muhlberger has been added to > unschooling-list-digest. I am wondering if anyone has heard of this server or user before. Unipissing? Sounds a bit suspect to me... Also, what are your policies and feelings about non-subscribers posting to your list? TIA, Cindy Stanley Unschooling List Mom connect@ecentral.com There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered. - Nelson Mandela From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 06:10:02 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA04553 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 06:02:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunic.sunet.se (sunic.sunet.se [192.36.125.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id GAA04545 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 06:02:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE by sunic.sunet.se (8.6.8/2.03) id PAA22707; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:02:48 +0100 Received: by Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE (Sun-4/630, SunOS 4.1.2) with sendmail 5.61-bind 1.5+ida/ICU/DoCS id AA28250; Sun, 1 Dec 96 15:02:47 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 96 15:02:47 +0100 Message-Id: <9612011402.AA28250@Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE> From: Per Starback To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <32A18EDE.561F@ecentral.com> (message from Cindy Stanley on Sun, 01 Dec 1996 06:57:50 -0700) Subject: Re: Questionable Address? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Cindy Stanley wrote: > I am wondering if anyone has heard of this server or user before. > Unipissing? Sounds a bit suspect to me... unipissing.ca is not University of Pissing, which indeed would sound a bit suspect, but Nipissing University. Check out their WWW pages at . > Also, what are your policies and feelings about non-subscribers > posting to your list? I don't allow it, mostly because of spam. -- Per Starback http://www.update.uu.se/~starback "Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!" From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 08:40:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA06908 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:32:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA06897 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from attitude.queernet.org (attitude.queernet.org [140.174.78.2]) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id IAA23767 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19961201083110.0281489c@pop.queernet.org> X-Sender: rogerk@pop.queernet.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 beta 1 (32) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 08:31:13 -0800 To: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:05 AM 12/1/96 -0500, David B. Smith wrote: >But that's not the question. You have two different customers, buying >exactly the same product. One is paying less money. The other is >paying more money for the same product, -because- they also paid more >money for hardware, more money for connections to the Net, and so on. >But the product is -exactly- the same. Why should the customer who more >heavily uses the product subsidise the smaller user? They're NOT buying anything. They're licensing a solution to a problem. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 08:54:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA07174 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from webdreams.com (www.webdreams.com [192.80.84.132]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id IAA07167 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 08:48:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by webdreams.com (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/29Aug96-0251AM) id AA28890; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:48:16 -0500 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:48:16 -0500 (EST) From: Brock Rozen To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: "David B. Smith" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19961201083110.0281489c@pop.queernet.org> Message-Id: X-Url: http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >But that's not the question. You have two different customers, buying > >exactly the same product. One is paying less money. The other is > >paying more money for the same product, -because- they also paid more > >money for hardware, more money for connections to the Net, and so on. > >But the product is -exactly- the same. Why should the customer who more > >heavily uses the product subsidise the smaller user? Are you advocating that Novell should only make a company buy one company of it's software and then be able to install it on thousands of computers? That they should pay as much as a company who installs it on only 10 computers? The answer is very simple, and there's two reasons. One, because they are getting more benefit out of the product. Regardless of that, the company can decide HOWEVER much they want to charge for their product. (within law) If you don't like their policies, buy another package! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brock Rozen | brozen@webdreams.com | http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 11:10:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA09453 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:59:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA09442 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:59:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.108] (d72.netgate.net [205.214.160.108]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA21654; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:01:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:01:15 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611281051.KAA12763@synergy.transbay.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: "John Buckman" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Performance impact & To field contents (was Re: Lyris) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:42 AM -0000 11/28/96, John Buckman wrote: >LISTSERV, ListProc and Majordomo. Every message which goes out to a >list member is slightly different. Each message contains the >member's name and ID in the SMTP header, so that if the message Wow. Please forgive the strength of my statement, but I'd like to congratulate you on an astonishingly bad design decision. You've used an entirely good and reasonable rationale for making a design decision that creates horrible scaling performance and will aid in the congestion of the net, if your product becomes successful. >The To: address of every message is always the recipient's email >address, not the list name. This makes it simple for the recipient >to determine what email address they are subscribed with. > >I don't know of any list server which has these capabilities. As noted by others, the human factors of your design also is problematic, since this makes things a royal pain to filter. I use Eudora so no, it's not just the "ability" to do filtering, it's the criteria and the need to use a different model. And no, this isn't unique. I'm on some other lists that do this and I really don't like it. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 11:12:47 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA09443 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:59:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA09433 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:59:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.108] (d72.netgate.net [205.214.160.108]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA21621; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:00:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:00:59 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611280355.TAA02009@ilinx.ilinx.com> References: <199611271803.SAA09898@synergy.transbay.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net From: Dave Crocker Subject: re[2]: Lyris Cc: jbuckman@shelby.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:55 AM -0000 11/28/96, Brian J. Murrell wrote: >bigger? What more do I get when I pay the premium for more lists and/or What you get more of is service. I have no stake in (or knowledge about) Lyris, and I even share your discomfort about such licensing, when the product itself does not change with the fee. The problem, however, is a serious dilemma for software manufacturers. How do they price aggressively and still make money? For example, how do you encourage entry-level users of the package? This requires a low price. But list service software is not a (relatively) high volume market. As someone noted in an earlier message, the entire market is probably at most in the tens or hundreds of thousands of installations, rather than in the tens of millions. So charge people according to use. Small users pay small fees. large users pay larger fees. Having said all the above, my personal choice probably would have been to try to avoid reactions like yours by designing differential products, so that the cheap one is somewhat less performant (e.g., single-threaded) and scales less well and maybe has fewer management features. But that's more hassle. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 11:15:46 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA09557 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA09549 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.108] (d72.netgate.net [205.214.160.108]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA21733; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:02:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:02:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611281103.DAA27612@miles.greatcircle.com> References: Message of Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:34:33 +7 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Eric Thomas From: Dave Crocker Subject: list performance metrics Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:09 AM -0000 11/28/96, Eric Thomas wrote: >socket. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you can get these 300k/hour >using sendmail on the same hardware, if you configured and tuned it for The number that seems to be getting popular for "high performance" MTAs is 100K messages per hour. As you point out in your note, metrics need to be considerably more sophisticated than a simple 'deliveries per second' number. That, of course, leads to a question about the right set of measures for list processing software. Given that this is now a product market segment, it would be helpful to develop ListStones, or somesuch. If there is interested in separate discussion of this (i.e., if it is deemed inappropriate to pursue as an extended discussion on this listed) the IMC would be glad to support a separate list, e.g., imc-listproducts or imc-listperformance or somesuch.) >You aren't seriously suggesting that the figures will improve as the >number of users and hosts in your workload increases? :-) 3000 people Actually, that's not such a silly possibility, since it allows for much better aggregation behavior. The difference between the cost of a single message and address, processed singly, versus the average for a large number of messages and addresses, can be huge, depending upon the design for scaling. d/ ps. I doubt that vanilla sendmail can get even artificial high numbers, due to its tendency to do single message per connection and even per process, though perhaps the recent round of enhancements has improved things. -------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segr=E9 Place dcrocker@imc.o= rg Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 12:25:37 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA12155 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom16.netcom.com (netcom16.netcom.com [192.100.81.129]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA12141 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:12:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom16.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id NAA04575; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:12:16 -0700 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:12:16 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom16 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: subscribing to many lists In-Reply-To: <199611280900.BAA22405@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, List-Managers-Digest wrote: > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:08:32 -0700 (MST) > From: "Lazlo Nibble" > Subject: slcb1bbs@juno.com > > Don't allow this address onto your lists if you can help it -- they're > subscribing to mailing lists so they can spam them. This is the second posting like this is the last couple of days, each with a similar comment. It is NOT my experience that the charge made is true. Rather, most of these people are poor schmucks who are being mailbombed by bozos who use OUR resources to hassle others. They forge the return line in order to sign some hapless victim up for as many lists as possible, so the poor slob has to abandon his address in order to get anything done. To then slander them with "spammer" accusations adds insult to injury. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 13:09:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA12888 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:57:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilinx.ilinx.com (ilinx.bctel.net [204.174.213.24]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id MAA12881 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:57:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from brian@localhost) by ilinx.ilinx.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id MAA01961; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:56:58 -0800 From: "Brian J. Murrell" Message-Id: <199612012056.MAA01961@ilinx.ilinx.com> Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:56:58 -0800 (PST) To: dbsmith@atbbs.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Reply-To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net Subject: Re[6]: Lyris In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3-960829-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll > If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the > product paying Y? Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. b. -- Brian J. Murrell brian@ilinx.com InterLinx Support Services, Inc. brian@wimsey.com North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 13:24:54 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA13255 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:17:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA13248 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:17:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612012117.NAA13248@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.E95BACF2@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:17:32 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6185; Sun, 01 Dec 96 22:11:02 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 6812; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:11:03 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:15:19 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: list performance metrics To: Dave Crocker cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:02:17 -0800 (PST) from Dave Crocker Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:02:17 -0800 (PST) Dave Crocker said: >ps. I doubt that vanilla sendmail can get even artificial high numbers, >due to its tendency to do single message per connection and even per >process, though perhaps the recent round of enhancements has improved >things. Just put, say, 1000 RCPT TO: fields in your message, all to the same host on the same ethernet. Run 100 concurrently on a PC with enough RAM to avoid paging. That's 100,000 deliveries, now you just have to get them out the door in 20 minutes and you'll have your 300k/hour. All you need to do is assemble enough receiver machines so that your sending PC can be kept 100% CPU busy (it has no paging and virtually no I/O to do). Hint: using sendmail as a receiver is not necessarily a good idea! I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to reach 100/sec or more. I've seen a single LSMTP host input recipients at the rate of 1000/sec sustained from a machine on the same ethernet (while running 1500 outbound connections at the same time, all that on a processor which is totally unimpressive nowadays). This isn't sendmail of course, but where raw CPU cycles for protocol processing are concerned 100/sec is actually not that much. It really means 100 RCPT TO:/250 OK sequences, and this isn't much at all. Actually, I seem to remember that CyberPromo touted 250k/hour, and they are using sendmail. CyberPromo isn't the kind of company that would make up these numbers, they knew from day one that they were going to be suing AOL and other big names, being featured on major newspapers and all that. The last thing you want to do in that case is discredit yourself with figures you've just made up (as opposed to basement spam companies that sell you "advanced turbocharged" mailers for $300 and make whatever performance claims they feel they have to make to get your $300). As a matter of fact, if your setup is optimized to spam only AOL accounts, it is even possible that you might be able to reach these rates with sendmail. Eric From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 13:39:55 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA13906 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:38:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA13868 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id NAA11465; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:38:31 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:38:31 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612012056.MAA01961@ilinx.ilinx.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll > > > If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the > > product paying Y? > > Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. > > -- > Brian J. Murrell brian@ilinx.com > InterLinx Support Services, Inc. brian@wimsey.com > North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX > Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD > Worth is a variable. A product or service has varying value depending on the needs and constraints of any specific user. Worth varies from user to user, time to time. To say the product is "worth X", seems to reveal the notion that worth is a function development cost. It may mean that to you, it may mean simply "what the profitable portion of the marketplace will bear" to another. Two different users may both fully utilize the features of a product, and yet have different scales of use, different concerns and needs. This explains why one person would find something "worth" the requested price, while another user does not. That seems quite elementary, and underlies all pricing issues for products and services in life. Companies generally invest their time and resources to develop a product that may have a "worth" to a limited percentage of an entire user market... that percentage thereof from which a price can be extracted which yields a profit goal and and cost recovery which makes sense over years of risk and future development. Some people seem to have to problem with demanding a paycheck for their time at work, yet complain about companies of such people charging for their products and services... developed on the backs of people who need paychecks to live. What's up? James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 14:24:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA15303 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 14:12:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from slug.swcp.com (slug.swcp.com [198.59.115.24]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA15296 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 14:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by slug.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id PAA28308 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:12:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199612012212.PAA28308@slug.swcp.com> Subject: subscribing to many lists To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:12:20 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> Subject: slcb1bbs@juno.com >> >> Don't allow this address onto your lists if you can help it -- they're >> subscribing to mailing lists so they can spam them. > > It is NOT my experience that the charge made is true. Rather, most of > these people are poor schmucks who are being mailbombed by bozos who use > OUR resources to hassle others. They forge the return line in order to > sign some hapless victim up for as many lists as possible, so the poor > slob has to abandon his address in order to get anything done. To then > slander them with "spammer" accusations adds insult to injury. In this case, the charge was true. I was there, Randy -- you weren't. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 16:09:56 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA19496 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from cantec.com ([206.31.250.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA19489 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:55:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from www by cantec.com with SMTP (IPAD 1.12) id 2506500 ; Sun, 01 Dec 96 18:53:55 UTC Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961201235056.0030ef84@cantec.com> X-Sender: dbigham@cantec.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 18:50:56 -0500 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Dave Bigham Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:31 AM 12/1/96 -0800, you wrote: >At 12:05 AM 12/1/96 -0500, David B. Smith wrote: >>But that's not the question. You have two different customers, buying >>exactly the same product. One is paying less money. The other is >>paying more money for the same product, -because- they also paid more >>money for hardware, more money for connections to the Net, and so on. >>But the product is -exactly- the same. Why should the customer who more >>heavily uses the product subsidise the smaller user? > >They're NOT buying anything. They're licensing a solution to a problem. >-- >ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG >2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF >"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick > They are indeed buying something. They are buying a license. I have some serious dificulty with the concept of paying more for the two versions of the same thing if the only difference is some internal limit on its functionality. There is precedent for this though. Many software houses do essentially the same thing. The most notable is Microsoft. Windows NT - 4.0 is sold as a Workstation package and a Server package. The Server package has a bunch of "free" stuff included, costs about 2 1/2 times as much and is *EXACTLY* the same as Workstation. The only difference is two Register settings which can be changed if you know how. Release 3.51 was easier to change but MS figured that one out and hid the settings. At least Listserv offers three versions which are, in great measure, different from one another and have different capacities for sending mail. They apparently aren't numerically limited capacities but algorithmic differences I find the idea of paying more for a product simply because of *MY* use of it troublesome, however. Should I pay more for my personal stock management software because I have $25 million in stocks and bonds and my neighbor less because he only has $25,000? I think not. (Those are, by the way, the last known words of Descartes.) It's been a good discussion though. Best to all. Dave Bigham dbigham@cantec.com From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 16:25:12 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA21377 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:23:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA21370 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA18226 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:23:08 GMT Message-Id: <199612011623.QAA18226@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:21:14 +7 Subject: re: Lyris X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. We've decided that in the next version of Lyris, the contents of the To: header in outgoing mail will be user-configurable. You'll have the option of not rewriting it, having the To: be the recipient's address, rewriting the To: to be the mailing list address, or putting user-defined text in the To: header Also, though many list servers use a Reply-To header which points back to the list, some people feel very strongly that this is a bad thing. So, we will make Reply-To: a list-configurable setting in the next Lyris version. jb john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 16:41:20 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA21425 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA21409 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts5-03.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.137.103]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id TAA14602; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:26:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961202002658.006b0dc4@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 19:26:58 -0500 To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris Cc: dbsmith@atbbs.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:56 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Brian J. Murrell wrote: >from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll > >> If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the >> product paying Y? > >Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. And the answer is simple enough for a child to understand: Nobody is forcing them to pay Y; they are only likely to pay Y if it is in fact worth enough more than Y to them in their judgement to change from what they were doing before. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 16:44:13 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA21667 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from itw.com (rsk.itw.com [206.138.122.70]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA21660 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by itw.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id TAA00314 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:32:53 -0500 (EST) From: Rich Kulawiec Message-Id: <199612020032.TAA00314@itw.com> Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:32:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19961201235056.0030ef84@cantec.com> from "Dave Bigham" at Dec 01, 1996 06:50:56 PM Reply-To: rsk@itw.com Organization: Ditka Diplomatic Studies Institute X-Last-River: Lehigh, PA X-Last-CD: Duncan Sheik, "Duncan Sheik" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0b1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dave Bigham writes: >They are indeed buying something. They are buying a license. > >I have some serious dificulty with the concept of paying more for the two >versions of the same thing if the only difference is some internal limit on >its functionality. There is precedent for this though. My two cents worth (everybody dig in your pockets for loose change and prepare to pay up!): I'm with Dave. I won't buy products that fit this pricing model, because that's my way of voting with my wallet. And since I do consulting to various places, I always try to convince them that they shouldn't either, which I suppose you could say is my way of voting with *their* wallets...which are much, much larger. Dave's also right about there being various precedents for this kind of usage-based pricing; but I figure if enough of us refuse to play this silly game that vendors (are you listening?) will eventually notice. Either that or they can continue to lose potential revenue. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 17:41:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA23622 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:29:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.inetnebr.com (falcon.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA23615 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:29:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA29911 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:45 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA07538 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:36 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA25493 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:33 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199612020129.TAA25493@celery.tssi.com> Subject: re: Lyris Feedback To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:29:33 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to > Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. Since this is a a commercial product and you are using this list as a test market without a beta agreement, where do we send our consulting fee invoices to? -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 17:45:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA23299 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id RAA23266 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:22:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from georgew.gw.pps.pgh.pa.us ([198.206.21.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA00913 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:01:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from WIN95_SERVER.pps.pgh.pa.us (modem8.admin.pps.pgh.pa.us [198.206.16.174]) by georgew.gw.pps.pgh.pa.us (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA28651 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:01:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:01:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199611280401.XAA28651@georgew.gw.pps.pgh.pa.us> X-Sender: ctaylor@georgew.gw.pps.pgh.pa.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Ctaylor Subject: Email scanners??? is there such a thing? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 01:00 AM 11/26/96 -0800, you wrote: Is there a email package or browser of sorts with the capability to scan email for Certain subject matter? ie. I subscribe to a sci-fi mailing list and i often have to scan thru pages of unintersting articles to find what i really want to read. I've heard rumors of email browsers with this capability but have not been able to find any that match this discript. What I want to be able to do is make a list of topics, titles, etc and have this program scan for the subject and take any paragraphs with that title and cut them into a new doc. I've been considering developing an app with these capabilities but why reinvent the wheel if I dont have to??? Any re: are welcomed. Carlos Taylor Hetep aNd mAy your MiNd eXpaNd Your HoriZonZ.. :) From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 17:57:46 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA23945 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:41:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA23938 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.108] (d102.netgate.net [205.214.160.140]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA16147; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611291557.HAA28092@miles.greatcircle.com> References: Message of Thu, 28 Nov 1996 18:37:19 +7 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Eric Thomas From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Lyris Cc: Jeff Wasilko , John Buckman , Chip Rosenthal , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:48 PM -0000 11/29/96, Eric Thomas wrote: >>Lyris does the same thing. Messages to the same domain are grouped >>together and sent in many fewer SMTP sessions. > >But it doesn't offer any speed-up, since you need to resend the entire >message data every time, ie MAIL FROM, RCPT, DATA, MAIL, RCPT, DATA and >so forth. It also means Lyris will require significantly more bandwidth well, saving on the number of connection setups DOES count. It's just that it doesn't count as well as massively reducing the number of MESSAGES. it occurs to me that the counter to some of our complaints about one message per receipient is that many lists have little aggregation by domain or host, so that one might end up having to send very nearly one message per recipient anyhow... I know that there are no other members of this list at brandenburg.com. If the list manager is really clever, it will discover that the physical machine to send to is ng.netgate.com and will try to aggregate on that; but I doubt there are many recipients for list-managers on that machine, either. sigh. not only is it tough to get good performance, it's tough to get good performance when TALKING about good performance... d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 18:25:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA25023 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:14:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from polaris.smcs.com (polaris.smcs.com [206.88.72.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id SAA25014 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:14:23 -0800 (PST) From: Donald Loughlin To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris X-Mailer: ScoMail 3.0.Bd MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:13:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9612012113.aa25180@polaris.smcs.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich Kulawiec wrote: >... I'm with Dave. I won't buy products that >fit this pricing model, because that's my way of voting with my wallet. I admire your conviction. I assume that you also don't patronize any airlines. They notoriously vary prices for the same seat on the same flight over an 8:1 range. Most _industrial_strength_ software pricing is tied to concurrent users, number of seats, etc. Look at the Major Databases and Business Critical Operating Systems. It seems a reasonable way to put the product into small users hands at lower cost, while generating enough revenue from large users to support future development. I may or may not agree with Lyris pricing model, but I will defend their (and my) right to price products any way they want. Each of us can choose to purchase them under those conditions, or go elsewhere. IMHO this thread has outlived its useful life. Lets here more on the technical merits. Don -------------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Loughlin donl@smcs.com SSSS M M CCCC SSSS Super Micro Computer Systems S MM MM C S 6 Essex Drive SSSS M M M C SSSS Hauppauge NY 11788 S M M C S +1-516-582-3404 FAX +1-516-234-6943 SSSS M M CCCC SSSS -------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 19:24:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA28400 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca [128.100.102.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id TAA28360 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:35 -0800 (PST) From: rasmus@vex.net Received: from krone.lerdorf.on.ca (krone.lerdorf.on.ca [207.164.141.2]) by madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (8.7.4/8.7.1) with SMTP id WAA00469; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:16:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:16:27 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rasmus@vex.net Subject: Re: Lyris To: John Buckman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612011623.QAA18226@synergy.transbay.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Also, though many list servers use a Reply-To header which points > back to the list, some people feel very strongly that this is a bad > thing. So, we will make Reply-To: a list-configurable setting in the > next Lyris version. I would hope that every single header would be user configurable. -Rasmus From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 19:27:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA28393 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id TAA28347 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA18729; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:16:28 GMT Message-Id: <199612011916.TAA18729@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: Dave Crocker Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:14:34 +7 Subject: Aggregating on MX records CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > If the list manager is really clever, it will discover that the > physical machine to send to is ng.netgate.com and will try to > aggregate on that; but I doubt there are many recipients for > list-managers on that machine, either. Actually, that technique works quite well and is quite implementable. You'll get much better aggregation results if you aggregate based on the MX hosts rather than the physical hostname of the email address. A great many ISPs offer their corporate customers "virtual email domains", which exist only to offer a pretty email address with the customer's company name on it. Thus, a number of seemingly different domains might point to the same mail server as their primary MX host. Thus, if you cache the MX records of DNS lookups of your subscriber list, and aggregate according to those MX records, (mail.isp.net, as opposed the domain portion of the email address, say isp.net) you'll have a higher success rate, and save yourself a considerable amount of time in avoiding those DNS lookups on every subscriber for every message to the list. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 20:28:09 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA01193 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA01179 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id UAA16210; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:11:07 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:11:07 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: re: Lyris Feedback To: Mike Nolan cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199612020129.TAA25493@celery.tssi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Mike Nolan wrote: > > I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to > > Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. > > Since this is a a commercial product and you are using this list as a test > market without a beta agreement, where do we send our consulting fee > invoices to? This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a result. Actually, when I first posted a query here inviting comment on features of Lyris vs. Listproc and Lsoft, there was modest response compared to the knowledge everyone in fact has. I asked John Buckman whether he was on this list, since he didn't respond to my queries here. He then joined the list to partipate in the exchange of technical information of comparative nature, as I requested, to improve on the level real detail and dialogue. He then posted a liberal amount of detail lacking prior thereto, and proceeded to get flamed like hell. I think all list managers do themselves a real disservice by acting like that. Think about it. We all probably feel there is no perfect list management software available, just some better and some worse. Perhaps we all wish that more vendors would come up with more offerings which include more of the stuff just the way we all want. Someone has to spend the time and money to get there, and over a considerable period of time. Like everyone, they check the market, gather feedback, and adjust over time. John Buckman didn't come here to ask for product design advice. He came here to provide the information that we were discussing in a thread, and which I suggest he contribute to. That is how it *should be* if we're going to see progress, especially customer oriented progress. We've just seen a very remarkable event here. A new vendor on the market, working seriously on a new offering, has explanied their rationale, gotten feedback, and plans to implement just what folks asked for here. That is pretty darn nice in my book. I hope it applies to other important features as well. How else are we going to move toward better options? I think it is a disservice to express our ideas of what is good and bad design with the almost hot headed, flame like remarks. If a vendor is willing to listen and explain rationales, why not welcome it and communicate in cooperative spirit. Why try to burn folks up? What we all really need is very clear thinking, exchange of info for the sake of solid, good change. Let's encourage that. Not throw mud in their faces. If you want to succeed in vendors into "oblivion", then you'll succed most likely in finding products of inferior quality, less customer and real world oriented, on the market. And some of them may screw up some of your work life more than if you could have influenced design early on. My suggestion would be to thank the Lyris folks for laying out the info, for implementing at least one important change right away, and then see what other important considerations should take place. What if it results in some great new products over the next year? James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 20:44:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02050 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:32:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA02043 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id WAA09805; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:32:58 -0600 Message-Id: <199612020432.WAA09805@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records To: jbuckman@shelby.com (John Buckman) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:32:58 -0600 (CST) Cc: dcrocker@brandenburg.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612011916.TAA18729@synergy.transbay.net> from "John Buckman" at Dec 1, 96 07:14:34 pm From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk John Buckman said... | |A great many ISPs offer their corporate customers "virtual email |domains", which exist only to offer a pretty email address with the |customer's company name on it. Thus, a number of seemingly |different domains might point to the same mail server as their |primary MX host. | |Thus, if you cache the MX records of DNS lookups of your subscriber |list, and aggregate according to those MX records, (mail.isp.net, as |opposed the domain portion of the email address, say isp.net) you'll |have a higher success rate, and save yourself a considerable amount |of time in avoiding those DNS lookups on every subscriber for every |message to the list. So what happens when a mailhost reroutes mail based on the domain? For instance, webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com might be different addresses, where foo.com and bar.com are virtual domains on the same system. -Miles From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 20:48:09 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02176 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:36:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from izzy4.izzy.net (izzy4.izzy.net [198.108.102.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA02169 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:35:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from UUatbbs@localhost) by izzy4.izzy.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) id XAA25808 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:31:53 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: izzy4.izzy.net: UUatbbs set sender to atbbs!dbsmith using -f >Received: by atbbs.com (0.99.960714) id AA00734; 01 Dec 96 23:34:52 -0500 From: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) Date: 01 Dec 96 22:41:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris Message-ID: References: <1.5.4.32.19961202002658.006b0dc4@inforamp.net> Organization: American Tune BBS To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk DL>To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net DL>From: David Lloyd-Jones DL>Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris DL>At 12:56 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Brian J. Murrell wrote: DL>>from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll DL>> DL>>> If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the DL>>> product paying Y? DL>> DL>>Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. DL>And the answer is simple enough for a child to understand: Nobody is forcing DL>them to pay Y; they are only likely to pay Y if it is in fact worth enough DL>more than Y to them in their judgement to change from what they were doing DL>before. What percentage of mailling list software companies use exactly the same sort of pricing structure? So, what was that about choice, again? ___ X SLMR 2.1a X Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. -- >> David B. Smith Email sysop@atbbs.com, dbsmith@izzy.net >> Sysop, American Tune BBS "The cure for all the ills of Democracy >> is more Democracy!" -- NY Gov. Al Smith >> >> My views are sometimes not even my own, much less anyone else's. >> My employers don't necessarily speak for me, either, 'natch. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 20:55:08 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02449 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:46:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA02266 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 29459 invoked by uid 305); 2 Dec 1996 04:39:28 -0000 Message-ID: <19961202043928.29458.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: James Cook cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29448.849501566.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 23:39:26 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk perhaps you have some vested interest in lyris. we do not. we will not accrue any benefit. -------- In reply to: This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a result. --------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:02:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02438 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:45:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA02431 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id WAA09874 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:47:43 -0600 Message-Id: <199612020447.WAA09874@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: re: Lyris Feedback To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:47:43 -0600 (CST) From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk James Cook said... |This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software |design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a |result. ... |John Buckman didn't come here to ask for product design advice. He came |here to provide the information that we were discussing in a thread, and |which I suggest he contribute to. I have to agree. I was personally appalled at a couple of the decisions in the product, but then again, that's why we have competition. The Lyris marketing *did* sound rather hypish, but John has explained things quite well, and I understand their claims (I would suggest that if they haven't already done so, they get some of this rationale and explanation onto their web pages - for those of us who have grown jaded when everyone's email product is better than everyone else's). Finally, I was impressd with John's responses under fire. John, you handled yourself with commendable reserve. I'm not a fan of the pricing strategy you folks have chosen, but that's what free markets are all about - you can try it and see how it works. Thanks for the info, and for taking our comments into account. -Miles meo@schoneal.com From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:07:34 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02844 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:52:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA02822 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts52-15.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.142.35]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id XAA16731; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:53:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961202045405.006c5d80@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 23:54:05 -0500 To: James Cook From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: re: Lyris Feedback Cc: Mike Nolan , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:11 PM 12/1/96 -0800, James Cook wrote: > >On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Mike Nolan wrote: > >> > I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to >> > Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. >> >> Since this is a a commercial product and you are using this list as a test >> market without a beta agreement, where do we send our consulting fee >> invoices to? > >This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software >design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a >result. I've been struck by the extreme sourness of many of the posts on this topic (as well as by the extreme stupidity of some of the economic theories presented). This is an offline newsgroup for professional concerns; evaluating stuff that isn't on the market yet is a professional concern. The Lyris people posting have struck me as modest, cooperative, and genuinely inqusitive about how to do things right. These are rare qualities among programmers, which is a major reason there has been so little positive result of the three trillion dollars invested in computers so far. I think they should have been made welcome -- and where people had criticisms to make of the software, those criticisms could have been made with good manners and good cheer, instead of the bitter carping we have seen. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:10:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA03212 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:00:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from garcon.unicom.com (garcon.unicom.com [192.108.105.37]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA03184 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from chip@localhost) by garcon.unicom.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26476; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:59:50 -0600 (CST) From: Chip Rosenthal Message-Id: <199612020459.WAA26476@garcon.unicom.com> Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records To: meo@schoneal.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:59:49 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199612020432.WAA09805@wildride.schoneal.com> from "Miles O'Neal" at Dec 01, 1996 10:32:58 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0a10] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Miles O'Neal writes: > So what happens when a mailhost reroutes mail > based on the domain? For instance, webmaster@foo.com > and webmaster@bar.com might be different addresses, > where foo.com and bar.com are virtual domains on the > same system. Exactly as what would happen otherwise -- except you've gotten the message to the MX host (which is where I'd presume this rerouting occurs) with a single SMTP transaction instead of two. -- Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development * URL: http://www.unicom.com/ * 4868D8BE10C86BDE 6017000BA783998E Helmet good. Law bad. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:13:29 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA02804 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:51:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.inetnebr.com (falcon.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA02765 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:51:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA16473 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:51:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA12567 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:51:29 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA06673 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:51:27 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199612020451.WAA06673@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback To: jcook@netcom.com (James Cook) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:47:28 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "James Cook" at Dec 1, 96 08:11:07 pm Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Mike Nolan wrote: > > > > I thought I'd report back on some changes we're going to make to > > > Lyris as a result of the feedback from this list. > > > > Since this is a a commercial product and you are using this list as a test > > market without a beta agreement, where do we send our consulting fee > > invoices to? > > This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software > design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a > result. We're also the primary market for the product, and at least initially the material on Lyris struck me as a whole lot more like marketing than an 'exchange of ideas.' > He then posted a liberal amount of detail lacking prior thereto, and > proceeded to get flamed like hell. I think all list managers do > themselves a real disservice by acting like that. Considering that his early posts were rather haughty (we do it THIS way because that's the RIGHT way, etc.), I thought the flames were a too acidic (as was my comment above) but at least somewhat deserved. It became an exchange of ideas only afterwards. I'm glad to to see that the developers are taking at least SOME of our feedback to heart, perhaps their marketers will, too. Hopefully the discussion will continue, and Lyris will benefit from it. List managers are probably bad examples of net citizens, which is ironic considering we tend to spend an inordinate amount of time convincing others to be good examples. We all tend to sermonize, and not many of us are net gods, except perhaps in our own minds. I posted my note because I thought the tone of the announcement that he sent out still smelled of 'marketing hype', but I've been running a fever since Wednesday so I'm probably cranky as hell right now. As I said in another post, I don't see myself as a qualified prospect for the product, because I don't have a revenue stream from my lists to support the cost. Given that it took me MONTHS to get my current list software to the state I wanted it, a 30 day 'free trial' isn't much of a trial at all, IMHO. I might, if I thought I had the time and other resources, try out the crippled edition at some time in the future, though. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:13:35 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA03319 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:04:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA03310 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA19087; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:04:12 GMT Message-Id: <199612012104.VAA19087@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:01:08 +7 Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records CC: dcrocker@brandenburg.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > So what happens when a mailhost reroutes mail based on the domain? > For instance, webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com might be > different addresses, where foo.com and bar.com are virtual domains > on the same system. It wouldn't change anything, since the same messages are communicated as with domain-aggregation. Let's say bar.com and foo.com are both virtual domains at isp.net, and that isp.net has mail server called mail.isp.net and mail2.isp.net. bar.com and foo.com have the same MX information, namely that the primary MX host is mail.isp.net, and secondary host is mail2.isp.net. Now, let's say webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com both belong a a list called "test-l", and a single email message has been sent to that this. With domain-based aggregate mailing, the mailer would see webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com as unrelated email addresses, and make two separate DNS inquiries, and two separate SMTP sessions (and connections) in order to transmit those two messages. With MX-based aggregate mailing, what happens depends on whether the two messages to send are identical, or different. If they are two different messages, then the SMTP sessions are the same as with domain-based aggregation, except that the two messages are sent in serial, in one TCP/IP session, rather than as two sessions, so you gain something in starting up fewer TCP/IP connections. If the two messages are identical, then MX-record aggregation really improves things, because you can add an extra RCPT TO:<> to the first message, for the 2nd recipient, and you'll have saved almost 1/2 the bandwidth. --- Perhaps someone can answer this question: do DNS servers cache MX records? Obviously, most DNS servers cache hostname->IP lookups, but I was wondering if they cached MX entries as well. Or, are there any mailers (or patched mailers) which cache MX records? It seems like an obvious place to increase efficiency, especially with busy mailing lists, so I'd be suprised if some mailer (MTA) didn't do this. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:25:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA04224 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:22:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA04217 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:22:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id XAA10108 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:24:15 -0600 Message-Id: <199612020524.XAA10108@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: vested interest? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:24:15 -0600 (CST) From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Paul Graham said... |perhaps you have some vested interest in lyris. we do not. we will not |accrue any benefit. I'd say that if lyris has become a more standards-compliant (if only de facto standards), if it's more net-friendly, then we have gained. And it's not like anyone held a gun to anyone else's head, forcing discussion. -Miles "Nobody move! I have a delete key, and I know how to use it!" From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:32:48 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA04195 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA04188 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:21:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id XAA10099 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:23:29 -0600 Message-Id: <199612020523.XAA10099@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: aggregate delivery To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:23:29 -0600 (CST) From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Miles said: > So what happens when a mailhost reroutes mail based on the domain? > For instance, webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com might be > different addresses, where foo.com and bar.com are virtual domains > on the same system. John Buckman replied: |It wouldn't change anything, since the same messages are |communicated as with domain-aggregation. |... |Now, let's say webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com both belong a |a list called "test-l", and a single email message has been sent to |that this. I wasn't clear - sorry. Let's say that they are aliased to different people. webmaster@foo.com could be redirected to foo@isp.com, while webmaster@bar.com is redirected to bar@isp.com (assuming foo.com and bar.com are both VDs at isp.com). As I understand it, lyris would attempt to send both of these to webmaster@mailhost.isp.com . Or does it simply connect to mailhost.isp.com but use SMTP TO fields of webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com ? -Miles From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:37:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA04071 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:18:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA04064 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:18:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id VAA26166; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:18:41 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:18:40 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <19961202043928.29458.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Paul Graham wrote: > perhaps you have some vested interest in lyris. we do not. we will not > accrue any benefit. > > -------- In reply to: > This is no test market. This is an exchange of ideas about software > design. We are the beneficiaires of any smart changes which occur as a > result. My point, if not already clear, was that this dialogue compares the technical functions and flaws of a variety of mail mangement programs, including Lyris. Smart changes made to Lyris or any other program it competes with as a result of such detailed discussion benefits anyone using those programs, and aids many of us in evaluating and managing software and lists we now have. People have sent me private mail mentioning that this has been educational for them, and touched on points of importance which are new to them. I don't have any interest in Lyris stock. I don't know anyone there except John Buckman based upon one phone call to the company. I've had more contact and general interest in the Lsoft product. I'm careful enough to value open discussion about competing products among others who know and care about this stuff a lot. There is no reason to hassle me for merely seeking perspectives on these products, and for mentioning the value of positive diaogue between vendors and customers in general. James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:39:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA04932 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:35:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA04922 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) id VAA10243; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:32:20 -0800 From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199612020532.VAA10243@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback To: nolan@tssi.com Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:32:19 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199612020451.WAA06673@celery.tssi.com> from "Mike Nolan" at Dec 1, 96 10:47:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Maybe the Lyrix developers, and those interested in giving feedback on this topic, should form a...mailing list?...to discuss it. Maybe there needs to be a mailing list for MLM development? We all _do_ know how to make mailing lists, right? Then again, list-managers hasn't had this much active traffic for months. :) --Kynn Bartlett, Idyllmtn Postmaster and Mailing List Manager for the HTML Writers Guild From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 21:56:31 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA05215 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id VAA05205 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 21:41:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts52-15.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.142.35]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id AAA17043; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 00:43:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961202054356.006aab5c@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 00:43:56 -0500 To: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:41 PM 12/1/96 -0500, David B. Smith wrote: > >DL>To: brian@ilinx.bctel.net >DL>From: David Lloyd-Jones >DL>Subject: Re: Re[6]: Lyris > >DL>At 12:56 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Brian J. Murrell wrote: >DL>>from the quill of dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) on scroll >DL>> >DL>>> If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the >DL>>> product paying Y? >DL>> >DL>>Thank-you. You have hit the nail square on the head. > >DL>And the answer is simple enough for a child to understand: Nobody is forcing >DL>them to pay Y; they are only likely to pay Y if it is in fact worth enough >DL>more than Y to them in their judgement to change from what they were doing >DL>before. > >What percentage of mailling list software companies use exactly the same >sort of pricing structure? > >So, what was that about choice, again? David Smith seems to miss the point: no matter what pricing structure _anybody_ uses, you are not forced to buy from them. You can sit up all night sending your e-mail out one item at a time if you like. The choice is yours. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 1 23:55:12 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA11417 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA11407 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:46:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA19567; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:46:21 GMT Message-Id: <199612012346.XAA19567@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:44:28 +7 Subject: Re: aggregate delivery X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Or does it simply connect to mailhost.isp.com but use SMTP TO > fields of webmaster@foo.com and webmaster@bar.com ? Exactly. BTW, we're in the research & test stage with MX-based aggregation, it's not present in the current shipping version of Lyris. The current version uses traditional domain-based aggregation. In order to do MX aggregation correctly, the mailer has to keep an up-to-date database of MX hosts for each subscriber, which takes time and disk space. We have to implement some benchmarks to establish in which cases it is worthwhile, and how much speed benefit the added complexity actually yields. So far, the biggest speed benefit is in having an in-memory DNS cache of subscriber's MX records. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 02:10:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA20462 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 01:59:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id BAA20441; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 01:59:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612020959.BAA20441@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.4E05B93A@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:59:08 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8515; Mon, 02 Dec 96 10:52:38 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 1578; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:52:38 +0100 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:47:49 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Lyris To: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM, Dave Crocker cc: Jeff Wasilko , John Buckman , Chip Rosenthal , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) Dave Crocker said: > well, saving on the number of connection setups DOES count. Fine, but name a "high end" MTA that doesn't do that. It's a bit like touting the presence of airbags in your luxury car; they all have that. When comparing MTAs, you wouldn't even mention connection reuse unless it were absent in one of the products being tested. > it occurs to me that the counter to some of our complaints about >one message per receipient is that many lists have little aggregation by >domain or host, That's not true. There is massive aggregation to domains like AOL.COM, which also account for a large fraction of the user base of most mailing lists. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 04:25:09 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id EAA25700 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 04:21:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from itw.com (rsk.itw.com [206.138.122.70]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id EAA25692 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 04:21:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by itw.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id HAA04670 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:22:24 -0500 (EST) From: Rich Kulawiec Message-Id: <199612021222.HAA04670@itw.com> Subject: Re: Re[4]: Lyris To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:22:23 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9612012113.aa25180@polaris.smcs.com> from "Donald Loughlin" at Dec 01, 1996 09:13:06 PM Reply-To: rsk@itw.com Organization: Ditka Diplomatic Studies Institute X-Last-River: Lehigh, PA X-Last-CD: Duncan Sheik, "Duncan Sheik" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0b1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Most _industrial_strength_ software pricing is tied to concurrent users, >number of seats, etc. Look at the Major Databases and Business Critical >Operating Systems. I use Linux for business-critical applications: it's free, and I find it's more robust than anything else I can lay my hands on with the possible exception of BSDI Unix. I don't use major databases (e.g. Oracle, Informix) because I find them completely bloated overkill for the applications that I need to work with; I find that I can handle *quite* large quantities of data faster by thoughtful application of much simpler tools. >It seems a reasonable way to put the product into small users hands at >lower cost, while generating enough revenue from large users to >support future development. Then I think that you and I have what amounts to a basic philosophical disagreement. I think software should be priced like a can of beans; you don't (as far as I can tell). Rich Kulawiec rsk@itw.com From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 06:55:35 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA06127 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 06:48:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id GAA06120 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 06:47:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 12654 invoked by uid 305); 2 Dec 1996 14:47:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19961202144744.12648.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: James Cook cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris Feedback References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <12618.849538060.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 09:47:40 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk i don't think so. to be frank i've been developing the impression that you're a shill for lyris since you don't seem to be aware of things that i'd expect someone doing legitimate research into a high end MLM to have discovered. let me apologize for that misapprehesion. however lyris is playing in a rather special area and for them to be ignorant of the issues raised in this discussion is a bit frightening. it says to me that they're interested in the small/personal computer market and that they're taking the same approach to interfaces favored by microsoft -- our way is the best, we don't need to understand how other people do things and the rest of you better get used to it. -------- In reply to: My point, if not already clear, was that this dialogue compares the technical functions and flaws of a variety of mail mangement programs, including Lyris. --------------------- -- paul pjg@acsu.Buffalo.EDU |public keys at: pjg@ubvm | http://urth.acsu.Buffalo.EDU/~pjg/key.html if the above contains opinions they are mine unless marked otherwise. From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 08:12:07 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA11284 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:56:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.clark.net (mail.clark.net [168.143.0.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id HAA11231 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:56:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from clark.net (indigo@explorer.clark.net [168.143.0.7]) by mail.clark.net (8.7.3/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA24538 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (indigo@localhost) by clark.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id KAA19557 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:56:28 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: clark.net: indigo owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:56:27 -0500 (EST) From: Deb To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris In-Reply-To: <199611281627.QAA13611@synergy.transbay.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, John Buckman wrote: > The main reason we rewrite the To: is that people often have > multiple email addresses, with forwarding instructions so that email > goes to different places it was originally sent. In such a case, the > recipient of list-generated email message doesn't know what email > address is registered at the list server. Perhaps rather than changing the To: header (in Pine, that has the annoying effect of causing the message to appear as personal rather than list mail), users fond of subscribing from multiple addresses could learn how to read the Received: headers. -- Deb \ indigo@clark.net From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 10:27:34 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA22882 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:21:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from sol.tins.net (sol.tins.net [205.173.230.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA22843 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:21:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mgg@localhost) by sol.tins.net (8.8.2/8.8.2) id KAA16491; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:18:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:18:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612021818.KAA16491@sol.tins.net> From: Mark Galbraith To: jbuckman@shelby.com CC: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: <199611281627.QAA13611@synergy.transbay.net> (jbuckman@shelby.com) Subject: Re: Lyris Organization: Triad InterNet Services X-Mailer: Emacs-19.32 X-Attribution: mgg Reply-to: mgg@sol.tins.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.78) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "John" == John Buckman writes: >> Unfortunately, this is a gratuitous rewriting of the original >> poster's message. If I address mail to foo@somewhere.com, I >> expect messages to arrive at the user saying that. If you wish >> to do address detection, put it in a user-defined header. John> The main reason we rewrite the To: is that people often have John> multiple email addresses, with forwarding instructions so that email John> goes to different places it was originally sent. In such a case, the John> recipient of list-generated email message doesn't know what email John> address is registered at the list server. Can't the savvy user just look through the 'Received' headers to find the lines that contain the "for" value. That's where I would look for the address the delivery was to. The To: header should reflect the list address. This makes it work the same as all the other major list software out there, and makes the job of filtering much easier. If you need to add the delivery address in a header, put it in a user-defined header. And anyway, why would your program generate 10,000 different messages for 10,000 subscribers? Wouldn't it be more efficient to group deliveries of multiple addressees at the same location? This would cut down on network traffic and workload on your system. -- Mark Galbraith Member of The HTML Writers Guild Engineer, Internet Services http://www.hwg.org/ Triad Systems Corporation (PGP Fingerprint=1CB9 7481 AD5C 5709 690B AC09 7F65 D6F6) From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 11:11:38 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA26962 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:06:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA26917 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA21338; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:05:53 GMT Message-Id: <199612021105.LAA21338@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: Mark Galbraith Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:04:02 +7 Subject: Re: Lyris CC: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > And anyway, why would your program generate 10,000 different messages > for 10,000 subscribers? Wouldn't it be more efficient to group > deliveries of multiple addressees at the same location? This would cut > down on network traffic and workload on your system. Yes, you are right that it is more efficient to send exactly the same message to everyone on the list. However, that technique creates another problem, that of analyzing error mail. If every user gets exactly the same message, the task of analyzing bounced messages is a difficult one, as you need to write a parser which is savvy to all the different mail systems out there, since there are so many different kinds of error messages. You also need to constantly update that error-analyzer, since error message formats are constantly changing. As a list owner, it is fairly common to receive error mail which bears almost no clues to which user bounced the message. Or, the clues are visible to a trained (human) list owner, but very difficult for a program to recognize. But, in almost all cases, bounced mail includes the header of the bounced message in the error message. So, if you include a unique key in the header of each outgoing message, which identifies each subscriber, that unique key will most likely appear in the error mail as well. This makes error processing much easier, and (in our experience) more consistently accurate, since you only have to look for that subscriber key to determine the bouncing subscriber. The feedback we received when designing Lyris was that error mail is a major problem when running mailing lists, and if there were a way to effectively and automatically process error mail, it was worth doing. Because there is an efficiency penalty with this technique, we decided to write our own mailer to help make up for some of the efficiency lost. Now, you may disagree with us. Perhaps it is your opinion that your list server handles error mail just fine, and the efficiency trade-off for improved error detection isn't worth it. If that's the case, Lyris isn't for you. BTW, I believe L-Soft uses a similar technique, except that LISTSERV sends a periodic "probe" message (which has L-Soft information about their probe technique), with every probe message being unique, and uses that to detect bad addresses. The advantage of their technique is that it doesn't have an efficiency penalty on general list traffic, because it is only used occasionally. The disadvantage is that their technique requires an intrusive "probe" message to be sent to every subscriber. The advantage to L-Soft is that every subscriber of every list using this technique gets a message explaining how great L-Soft LISTSERV is. Also, our experience is that occasional probing does not work well, because it is susceptible to over-reacting to transient failures. Disclaimer: my only knowledge of L-Soft's "probe" technique is in reading the probe message text that I've received as a member of lists using L-Soft LISTSERV. If I got my facts wrong, I'm not trying to deceive, I just don't have access to the full information. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 11:56:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA29574 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:30:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.inetnebr.com (falcon.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA29563 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:30:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA28880; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:30:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA22813; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:30:21 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA13661; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:30:18 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199612021930.NAA13661@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Lyris To: mgg@sol.tins.net Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:30:18 -0600 (CST) Cc: jbuckman@shelby.com, rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612021818.KAA16491@sol.tins.net> from "Mark Galbraith" at Dec 2, 96 10:18:14 am Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Can't the savvy user just look through the 'Received' headers to find > the lines that contain the "for" value. That's where I would look for > the address the delivery was to. There is no guarantee that the 'Received' headers contain that information, or the right information. There are THREE different 'for' addresses in the 'Received' headers of the post I'm responding to, and I've seen other e-mail arrive here with NO 'for' address in the 'Received' headers. (Is there a standard for this header? If so, it is apparently ignored by some MTA's, but unfortunately that shouldn't strike any of us as unusual.) -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 13:05:28 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA06909 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:43:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id MAA06892 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:43:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612022043.MAA06892@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <10.48DC0667@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 21:43:14 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2689; Mon, 02 Dec 96 21:36:44 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 0121; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 21:36:44 +0100 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:12:52 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Lyris To: Mark Galbraith , John Buckman cc: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:04:02 +7 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:04:02 +7 John Buckman said: >If every user gets exactly the same message, the task of analyzing >bounced messages is a difficult one, as you need to write a parser which >is savvy to all the different mail systems out there, since there are so >many different kinds of error messages. Well, I don't think anyone on this forum ever claimed that writing a good list manager was an easy task. If it were easy, there would be no room for commercial products :-) >But, in almost all cases, bounced mail includes the header of the >bounced message in the error message. Or rather, whatever the bouncing MTA calls a "header". For many systems, this is actually what is left of the header after converting to the local proprietary mail system. This may not include much more than date, origin, recipient and subject. >The advantage of their technique is that it doesn't have an efficiency >penalty on general list traffic, because it is only used occasionally. >The disadvantage is that their technique requires an intrusive "probe" >message to be sent to every subscriber. The advantage to L-Soft is that >every subscriber of every list using this technique gets a message >explaining how great L-Soft LISTSERV is. The advantage to L-Soft is that this technique scales up and allows customers to keep running very large lists on PC systems while taking advantage of the new feature, which increases the number of licenses L-Soft can hope to sell. It also keeps resource usage at the receiving sites and bandwidth usage where they are today. To give you an idea, it is estimated that AOL receives some 1.5M messages a day from LISTSERV. Something tells me that AOL would not be very happy if these messages were fed as 1.5M separate connections with one RCPT TO: each, especially if this happened overnight following the shipment of a new version of LISTSERV and there was no way to back out. Upgrading mail servers in that kind of scenario could take days, as new hardware might be needed. I'm only mentioning AOL because it's the largest online provider, I expect that the problem would hold for any other large provider (possibly even more than AOL, which is very serious about keeping the mail servers up to speed). It wouldn't be good for L-Soft or for the mailing list community in general if a new version of the code crashed a major online provider just because resource impact at the receiving end had not been considered in the design of a major new feature, or had been brushed off as "not our problem". It would only lead to managers decreasing mailing list budgets (hardware and software) in favour of usenet, web BBSes, etc. Call me old fashioned, but I feel that Internet vendors have an obligation to do things "the right way", even when this is not the optimal solution $$$ wise. To take an extreme case, a very simple way to suppress all bounces is to send all postings with MAIL FROM:<>. With enough hype you will actually be able to sell this to naive customers as a revolution in mailing list management and make money while cutting development costs. Meanwhile your competitors will be working hard implementing solutions that actually solve problems but only look more complicated and thus inferior to the users. Over time the lists will end up having hundreds or thousands of bad addresses that never get cleaned up, which leads to a waste of bandwidth and resource usage at both sending and receiving end and, guess what? It means more license revenues as the mailing list host gets slower and a second machine is bought to spread the load. The vendor wins and the community loses. Anyway, to get back to the matter at hand, L-Soft recommends replacing the "message explaining how great L-Soft LISTSERV is" with a FAQ or similar information. See the manuals for more details. Finally, in version 1.8d there will be an entirely new probe mechanism that will further reduce the resource impact of bounce-free list management based on the info we collected from 1.8c sites. >Also, our experience is that occasional probing does not work well, >because it is susceptible to over-reacting to transient failures. John, this problem was discovered a long time ago and has already been addressed in all sorts of list management packages, including LISTSERV. I'm surprised that you didn't know that, given the number of lists on which it has been discussed. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 13:10:55 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA08380 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA08336 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:56:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23666 invoked by uid 305); 2 Dec 1996 20:55:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19961202205553.23665.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: "John Buckman" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris References: <199612021105.LAA21338@synergy.transbay.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23654.849560151.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 15:55:51 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk as an alternative you could use the qmail+qlist approach. every message sent is tagged the way lsoft probe messages are tagged. no extra messages but the same level of bounce management. -------- In reply to: So, if you include a unique key in the header of each outgoing message, which identifies each subscriber, that unique key will most likely appear in the error mail as well. --------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 13:55:51 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA12783 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:42:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA12768 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:41:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from csa.bu.edu by cs.bu.edu (8.6.10/Spike-2.1) id QAA06156; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:41:48 -0500 From: tasos@cs.bu.edu (Anastasios Kotsikonas) Received: by csa.bu.edu (8.8.3/Spike-2.1) id QAA26754; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:41:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612022141.QAA26754@csa.bu.edu> Subject: Re: LSOFT's Listserv vs. LYRIS To: Brent@greatcircle.com (Brent Chapman) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:41:34 -0500 (EST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: from "Brent Chapman" at Nov 29, 96 07:30:12 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > At 9:18 AM +0100 11/27/96, Eric Thomas wrote: > >On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:58:55 -0500 (EST) Merrill Cook > >said: > > > >>The pricing I've seen suggests that they want to make money selling a > >>few copies. If they wanted to sell lots they wouldn't be charging so > >>much. > > > >LISTSERV Lite goes for $500-2000 OTC (corporate), with a free edition for > >non commercial use. > > > >It isn't possible to sell "lots" of copies of a mailing list manager, at > >least not in the meaning normally associated with PC software. There are > >thousands of copies of the freebies in use, not millions, not hundreds of > >thousands, not even tens of thousands. > > Actually, I think the number is up into the tens of thousands by now. > There have been about 1500 registered installations of Majordomo 1.94 since > it was released a little over a month ago. I think we can safely correct. listproc 6.0c has over 1200 registered installations at this point; and I have ran into unregistered sites myself, so the number is higher for 6.0 and I suspect for majordomo. tasos From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 16:40:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA27091 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA27084 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:33:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07681; Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:33:17 PST Received: from tardis by tymix.Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 2 Dec 0 16:33:16 PDT Received: by tardis.tymnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07818; Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:33:08 PST Date: Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:33:08 PST From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Message-Id: <9612030033.AA07818@tardis.tymnet.com> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In reference to the subject lines of Subject Re: Subject Re[2]: Subject Re[4]: Subject Re: Re[4]: Subject which mailer is responsible for the abomination of adding "[n]" after "Re:"? Isn't there an RFC that states "thou shalt not change 'Re:' to anything else"? -Joe From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 16:55:50 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA28192 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:45:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA28132 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08172; Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:44:58 PST Received: from tardis by tymix.Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 2 Dec 0 16:44:58 PDT Received: by tardis.tymnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07855; Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:44:56 PST Date: Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:44:56 PST From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Message-Id: <9612030044.AA07855@tardis.tymnet.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> If you wish to do address detection, put it in a user-defined header. > > Can't the savvy user just look through the 'Received' headers to find > the lines that contain the "for" value. That's where I would look for > the address the delivery was to. That only works if there is a single recipient on the destination machine. When a single mail message is sent to user1@host.com and user2@host.com, the 'Received' headers will NOT have a 'for' line. This is true even when one of the users is included as part of a Bcc list, This misfeature makes it difficult for a POP client to reliably reroute messages that got dumped into a single mailbox. -Joe From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 18:40:33 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA08812 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.inetnebr.com (falcon.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id SAA08737 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA27972; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:25:05 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA27468; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:24:48 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA22567; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:03:52 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199612022303.RAA22567@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Lyris To: ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (Eric Thomas) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:03:52 -0600 (CST) Cc: mgg@sol.tins.net, jbuckman@shelby.com, rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612022043.MAA06892@miles.greatcircle.com> from "Eric Thomas" at Dec 2, 96 08:12:52 pm Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >If every user gets exactly the same message, the task of analyzing > >bounced messages is a difficult one, as you need to write a parser which > >is savvy to all the different mail systems out there, since there are so > >many different kinds of error messages. > > Well, I don't think anyone on this forum ever claimed that writing a good > list manager was an easy task. If it were easy, there would be no room > for commercial products :-) > > >But, in almost all cases, bounced mail includes the header of the > >bounced message in the error message. > > Or rather, whatever the bouncing MTA calls a "header". For many systems, > this is actually what is left of the header after converting to the local > proprietary mail system. This may not include much more than date, > origin, recipient and subject. A feature I've always wanted to see in a MLM is some intelligence as to when to delve deeper on bounces. For example, if 'foo.com' is sending back bounced mail that can't be traced back to a particular list subscriber, then on the next message send out unique messages to everybody in that domain to see if that helps narrow the possibilities down somewhat. I do something like this manually every few months. I have a shell script that goes through my mailing lists and sends a test message to everybody, with the exact address that I'm sending to in the Subject header and in the body. 99% of the time I get back a bounce that lets me find bad addresses even if the MTA at the other end isn't very cooperative in its bounce message. On a few occasions, I've had to go into the sendmail logs to see what message ID went to what address. It also gives me a check on bad addresses at sites that refuse to follow the standards and send their bounces back to the author rather than to the envelope address. I could see this being a 'feature' that is invoked every X messages or time interval. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 2 22:25:22 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA24530 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:17:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom17.netcom.com (netcom17.netcom.com [192.100.81.130]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id WAA24514 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:16:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom17.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id GAA18832; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 06:16:39 GMT Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 06:16:39 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom17 To: Mark Galbraith cc: jbuckman@shelby.com, rogerk@QueerNet.ORG, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lyris In-Reply-To: <199612021818.KAA16491@sol.tins.net> Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Mark Galbraith wrote: > Can't the savvy user just look through the 'Received' headers to find > the lines that contain the "for" value. That's where I would look for MCIMail, for one, does not let the recipient look at at the 'Received' headers. In fact, the only headers the recipient can see are "From", "To", "Subject" and "Date". xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com SpamByte: The amount of spam Sanford Wallace sends to AOL in one 24 hour period. Roughly 1 000 Terabytes sent every 24 hours. T3 Connection: The connection that AOL needs to deal with the spam Sanford Wallaces send to them in one day, so that legitimate users can contact people at AOL. From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 08:55:32 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA03605 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:42:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mickey.umiacs.umd.edu (mickey.umiacs.umd.edu [128.8.120.49]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA03402 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:41:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (kovert@localhost) by mickey.umiacs.umd.edu (8.8.4/UMIACS-0.9/04-05-88) id LAA04178; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:41:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612031641.LAA04178@mickey.umiacs.umd.edu> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: changing the To: field Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 11:41:16 -0500 From: Todd Kover Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [ not quoting any previous text because I've long since deleted the messages about it. :-) ] One other big reason (that I hadn't seen yet) that argues strongly for not changing the 'To:' field of messages to that of the user that mail is being delivered for, is that it greatly increases the chances that vacation will start replying to messages letting people know that the user isn't around. This likely can add a considerable extra hassle to the list manager's life. -Todd -- Todd Kover // --o-- kovert@umiacs.umd.edu \X/ O- "Beware the fury of a patient man." http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kovert Who is John Galt? From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 09:40:48 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA08008 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:27:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from colossus.arl.mil (colossus.arl.mil [131.218.204.98]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id JAA07988 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [131.218.204.98] by colossus.arl.mil with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:32:11 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:32:11 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio) Subject: Re: changing the To: field Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 11:41 12/3/96, Todd Kover said: >One other big reason (that I hadn't seen yet) that argues strongly for >not changing the 'To:' field of messages to that of the user that mail >is being delivered for, is that it greatly increases the chances that >vacation will start replying to messages letting people know that the >user isn't around. ARRRRRRRRGGGGHHH!!! GOD, I HATE THOSE THINGS! Okay, now that I've gotten THAT out of my system: I usually try to educate my users (whenever possible -- heh) that the vacation mailer should be set to ***not*** reply to any messages that contain a "Precedence: Bulk" tag in the header. I know there are vacation mailers that aren't smart enough to do this, but it's a good step whenever possible. On one of the private lists I manage, a user's vacation mailer started a mail loop with the server; luckily, I was around when it started, and set his account to inactive. Mailers that do not support header parsing should simply NOT be used for vacation messaging. - Vince S. wavelet@colossus.arl.mil -- For info on HumourNet--the Internet's moderated mailing list for humor-- send the command INFO HUMORNET (only one U) to listproc@csf.colorado.edu -- Fight Spam on the Internet! From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 10:12:32 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA10480 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:02:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from halo.angel.net (halo.angel.net [204.141.48.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA10467 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:02:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.141.48.20] (axe.angel.net [204.141.48.20]) by halo.angel.net (8.7.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA05222; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 13:03:38 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: rmah@mail.angel.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9612030033.AA07818@tardis.tymnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 13:05:38 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Robert Mah Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" Cc: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >In reference to the subject lines of > Subject > Re: Subject > Re[2]: Subject > Re[4]: Subject > Re: Re[4]: Subject >which mailer is responsible for the abomination of adding "[n]" after "Re:"? > >Isn't there an RFC that states "thou shalt not change 'Re:' to anything else"? I think it's a BBS called First Class by SoftArc. I recall long arguments with their developers on USENET a few years ago about this very issue. They were arrogant and basically said they were right and the rest of the world was wrong. Cheers, Rob ..................................................................... Robert S. Mah Internet Presence 212-366-0881 Managing Director and Consulting Services rmah@angel.net http://www.angel.net/ From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 11:11:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA16280 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:03:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from burnout.cts.com (burnout.cts.com [204.216.216.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA16239 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:03:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from donews.cts.com (root@donews.cts.com [192.188.72.21]) by burnout.cts.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA27834 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:03:12 -0800 Received: from fatcity.com by donews.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vUzPb-00000bC; Tue, 3 Dec 96 10:17 PST Received: by fatcity.com (Wildcat) id 63412W Tue, 03 Dec 1996 09:51:32 GMT From: bruceb@fatcity.com (Bruce Bergman) Subject: Re: re[2]: Lyris Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 09:47:06 GMT Message-Id: <849606426@fatcity.com> Organization: Fat City BBS, San Diego, California To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -> > How do you justify the increase in price when the lists/subscribers gets -> > bigger? What more do I get when I pay the premium for more lists and/or -> > subscribers? I must get "more" of something due to the increase in the -> > price? -> Our use-limited pricing scheme is not without precedent. Many -> server programs, such as Network servers (Novell, Windows NT, -> Solaris) and Database servers (Oracle, Sybase) offer similar pricing -> schemes. I hate this kind of reasoning. Its akin to saying "welllll, Johnny is charging people like that, so I should charge like that too!" This is a weasly, whiney way of operating a software business. Database companies have LONG set unreasonable trends, like their tiered pricing schemes and their across-the-board unwillingness to publish benchmarks against each other, their rules about not selling their product to competitors, etc. Just because someone ELSE does something doesn't mean it's RIGHT. All of your claims of wonderful features and cool functions mean less to me than a company trying to gouge me for having larger and more numerous lists. For that reason alone, I will never purchase your products. I encourage other list managers to recognize this tactic and do likewise. Let's not support this kind of attitude. -> The only alternatives are to cater exclusively to the high end (with -> only a high-priced version) or to offer limited versions in some way. No, the way to do it is to offer a smaller set of features for the smaller list packages. People who only run two lists with no more than 50 subscribers rarely have the management problems that we bigger list owners do, and therefore may not need all those features. By reducing the price and offering less features, at least you're being consistent and not hypocritical. Believe me, when you get to the 100 list mark, and find 300-500 bounced mail messages in your mailbox every day, you'll PAY for features that help manage that nightmare. Price appropriately. Here's hoping you see the light... bruce From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 13:11:18 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA27271 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 13:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from night.primate.wisc.edu (night.primate.wisc.edu [144.92.43.19]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA27264 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 13:09:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from junkyard@localhost) by night.primate.wisc.edu (8.8.2/8.8.2) id PAA00558; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:11:17 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:11:17 -0600 From: junkyard@primate.wisc.edu (Software Development) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" References: <9612030033.AA07818@tardis.tymnet.com> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.53 Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: ; from Robert Mah on Dec 3, 1996 13:05:38 -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >In reference to the subject lines of > > Subject > > Re: Subject > > Re[2]: Subject > > Re[4]: Subject > > Re: Re[4]: Subject > >which mailer is responsible for the abomination of adding "[n]" after "Re:"? > > > >Isn't there an RFC that states "thou shalt not change 'Re:' to anything else"? Is there? What is it, I'd like to read it. I run a list for which I rewrite the Subject: header to put "[PT]" at the front of the subject so that list traffic can be easily identified by subscribers. Of course that means replies and replies to replies could end up generating ugly junk like this: Subject: [PT] some message Subject: [PT] Re: [PT] some message Subject: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] some message Subject: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] some message Subject: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] some message So instead I look for "Re: [PT]" at the front of Subject: lines and rewrite it to "[PT] Re:" to avoid this. That's not exactly rewriting the "Re:", perhaps, but I'd be interested to know what an RFC has to say on the issue. -- Paul DuBois dubois@primate.wisc.edu Home page: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/people/dubois Software: http://www.primate.wisc.edu/software From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 14:11:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA00974 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 13:56:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from moss.verinet.com (moss.verinet.com [204.144.246.15]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA00959 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 13:56:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from bamboo.verinet.com (bamboo.verinet.com [204.144.246.3]) by moss.verinet.com (8.7.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA23763 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:57:35 -0700 Received: from none (port9.verinet.com [204.144.246.58]) by bamboo.verinet.com (8.8.3/8.7.1) with SMTP id OAA24190 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:51:58 -0700 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961203215556.006a7dbc@verinet.com> X-Sender: sjepsen@verinet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 14:55:56 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Sandi-J Subject: Smartlist Information Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, I am currently running my list on Majordomo. Due to cost I need to move to another provider that uses SmartList. If anyone could point me in the direction of where I can find information for the List Owner on this software I would be very appreciative. Thanks Sandi From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 15:10:25 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA04266 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:02:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA04236 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from vicric@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.8.2/8.7/PanixU1.3) id SAA17183 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:01:52 -0500 (EST) From: Vicki Richman Message-Id: <199612032301.SAA17183@panix2.panix.com> Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:01:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Software Development" at Dec 3, 96 03:11:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Software Development has written: > So instead I look for "Re: [PT]" at the front of Subject: lines and > rewrite it to "[PT] Re:" to avoid this. Yes, that's exactly what I did with my homemade list, which I no longer use. The code string was inserted as the first word after 'Subject: '. But if the string was already present after 'Re: ' then the program simply reversed the two words and inserted nothing. However, Majordomo, which I now use, inserts the code string as the first word after 'Subject: ' only if the string is not already present somewhere in the header. If the string is present, as after 'Re: ', Majordomo leaves the line alone. Thus, to use the same string as in the above example, Majordomo would leave this header alone: Subject: Re: [PT] This is what I'm saying. I prefer that the code string always be the first word, even before 'Re: ', like this: Subject: [PT] Re: This is what I'm saying. It's easier to identify the list at a glance. Also, the reader simply discards the string to get the complete subject. There's no mental cut-and-paste to connect the 'Re: ' to the rest of the subject. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vicki Richman vicric@panix.com National Writers Union Harlem, New York PGP 2.6 UAW Local 1981, AFL/CIO "The fare shall not be fowl." -Credo of the Vegetarian Umpires Association ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 17:10:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA10644 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:03:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from java.aboard.co.uk (java.aboard.co.uk [194.73.51.130]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA10637 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nick@localhost) by java.aboard.co.uk (8.8.3/8.6.9) id BAA14384; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:04:06 GMT From: Nick Perry Message-Id: <199612040104.BAA14384@java.aboard.co.uk> Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" To: junkyard@primate.wisc.edu (Software Development) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:04:06 +0000 (GMT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Software Development" at Dec 3, 96 03:11:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Software Development wrote: > > >Isn't there an RFC that states "thou shalt not change 'Re:' to anything else"? > > Is there? What is it, I'd like to read it. I run a list for which I > rewrite the Subject: header to put "[PT]" at the front of the subject > so that list traffic can be easily identified by subscribers. Of course > that means replies and replies to replies could end up generating ugly > junk like this: IIRC I don't think this is mentioned in any RFC but it is common practice among email clients to tread and sort subjects based on removing any initial Re: thus you should avoid inserting anything *before* the Re: because many clients will not associate such articles with the original... If they didn't behave this way, clients may try to take subject lines such as Foo Bar (was Re: Fishing) and tread / sort them with the subject Fishing (actually that is arguably desirable!). Thus... [My List] Foo Bar Re: [My List] Foo Bar would be sorted together on most respectable client but [My List] Foo Bar [My List] Re: Foo Bar clearly wouldn't! Nick -- Nick Perry | AboarD Boats & Yachts Market Ltd Webmaster Manager | 7a Fernshaw Road, LONDON, SW10 0TB. UK Mobile: +44 (0)973 566204 | Tel: +44 (0)171 460 0030 Fax: 0040 | http://www.aboard.co.uk From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 20:25:24 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA20466 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:13:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA20441 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:12:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.44] (d12.netgate.net [205.214.160.44]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA00964; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:14:44 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612011623.QAA18226@synergy.transbay.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:56:50 -0800 To: "John Buckman" From: Dave Crocker Subject: re: Lyris Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:14 AM -0500 12/1/96, John Buckman wrote: >We've decided that in the next version of Lyris, the contents of the >To: header in outgoing mail will be user-configurable. You'll have =2E.. >Also, though many list servers use a Reply-To header which points >back to the list, some people feel very strongly that this is a bad Configuration switches are Good Things. But so are defaults. what are you setting for these two items? d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 20:28:21 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA20465 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:13:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA20434 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.44] (d12.netgate.net [205.214.160.44]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA00983 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:14:52 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612021000.CAA28366@nmail.netgate.net> References: Message of Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:42:57 -0800 (PST) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:00:16 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Lyris Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 4:47 AM -0500 12/2/96, Eric Thomas wrote: >> it occurs to me that the counter to some of our complaints about >>one message per receipient is that many lists have little aggregation by >>domain or host, > >That's not true. There is massive aggregation to domains like AOL.COM, >which also account for a large fraction of the user base of most mailing >lists. When someone says "Many X do Y", a response of "That's not true, because there is one X that clearly doesn't do Y" is simply non-responsive. It entirely misses the point of the original assertion. To give a specific example, from my original statement: Enterprise-wide network mailing lists are often entirely internal to the enterprise and may well show NONE of the aggregation that we have been discussing. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 23:41:35 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA29064 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA27467 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:19:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-961106) id UAA13794; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:53:40 -0800 Received: from synergy.transbay.net(207.105.6.2) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma013779; Tue Dec 3 20:52:56 1996 Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA28293; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:53:19 GMT Message-Id: <199612032053.UAA28293@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: Dave Crocker Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:51:28 +7 Subject: re: Lyris CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > At 11:14 AM -0500 12/1/96, John Buckman wrote: > >We've decided that in the next version of Lyris, the contents of the > >To: header in outgoing mail will be user-configurable. You'll have > ... > >Also, though many list servers use a Reply-To header which points > >back to the list, some people feel very strongly that this is a bad > > Configuration switches are Good Things. But so are defaults. > > what are you setting for these two items? Quite honestly, I don't know yet, as it will depend on what kind of user feedback we get. Initially, I'd guess that Reply-To: would be on by default, and that the To: header will be set to be untouched rather than the recipient's address. On a LISTSERV list that I'm on, it seems that To: is always rewritten to be the listname/description, regardless of what the user put there, as in: To: Multiple recipients of list K2000 I don't know if this is the default behavior or not. How do people feel about this? On the positive side, it gives simple mail filters which use the To: line something to work with. On the negative side, it disobeys the rule of not rewriting headers, and the question of what to do with the original To: is a little sticky (put in on the CC: line?, drop it completely?) --- Regarding putting the listname on the subject line -- why not put it at the end of the subject line, rather than at the beginning? As in: Subject: review of new Brandenburg CD becomes: Subject: review of new Brandenburg CD [bach-l] This method works around whether to put the listname before or after the Re: (thereby not screwing up message threads), gives something for the mail filter to work with, and is less visibly intrusive for the reader. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 3 23:46:23 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA27069 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:18:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA26453 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:16:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-961106) id WAA15317; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 22:23:54 -0800 Message-Id: <199612040623.WAA15317@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Received: from segate.sunet.se(192.36.125.6) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma015308; Tue Dec 3 22:22:57 1996 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <9.7F85E30C@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 7:23:24 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 1646; Wed, 04 Dec 96 07:16:45 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 8247; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 07:16:46 +0100 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:33:38 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Lyris To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Dave Crocker In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:00:16 -0800 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:00:16 -0800 Dave Crocker said: > When someone says "Many X do Y", a response of "That's not true, >because there is one X that clearly doesn't do Y" is simply >non-responsive. It entirely misses the point of the original assertion. Dave, I run the largest mailing list site in the world (3,037,510 deliveries yesterday) and I am intimately familiar with aggregation patterns for traditional mailing list traffic. My knowledge is based on factual data, not speculation. I did not give the AOL.COM example just for the sake of finding a little contrived example that doesn't fit your theory, but because it is highly relevant to the discussion. A handful of hostnames account for a large fraction of the Internet population, and yes these people do subscribe to mailing lists. The fact that massive aggregation to these sites is possible not only means that major savings in bandwidth and turnaround time are possible, but that these sites would be direly impacted if aggregation did not take place. As a responsible Internet vendor, we strive to do what is best for the community, even when this means more programming time to achieve the same result. > To give a specific example, from my original statement: >Enterprise-wide network mailing lists are often entirely internal to the >enterprise and may well show NONE of the aggregation that we have been >discussing. It may very well be that enterprise-wide network mailing lists have this property, however this is of no consequence because enterprises have tiny number of mailboxes compared to the Internet and much smaller mailing lists. Not many companies have 10k employees to start with, let alone 10k who use e-mail regularly. A typical enterprise list has some 100 subscribers, which is a piece of cake even for the freebies. Finally, in most cases mail systems like cc:Mail or MS Mail are used, and the bottleneck is by far the mail gateway. In this context, aggregation is usually irrelevant, whether possible or not. In the interest of not turning this into a flame war, let me just clarify that this is all based on data that L-Soft has (both from its own mailing list service and, for the second issue, from information provided by customers) and that I am not going to engage in a flame war about theories when I can just look up the answer in our files. Eric From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 4 00:55:28 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id AAA04130 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 00:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id AAA04121 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 00:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mne.ifi.uio.no (1232@mne.ifi.uio.no [129.240.70.5]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:51:39 +0100 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by mne.ifi.uio.no ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:51:37 +0100 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:51:37 +0100 Message-Id: <199612040851.18428.mne.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: nick@aboard.co.uk CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: <199612040104.BAA14384@java.aboard.co.uk> (message from Nick Perry on Wed, 4 Dec 1996 01:04:06 +0000 (GMT)) Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Nick Perry] | IIRC I don't think this is mentioned in any RFC Right, it's only mentioned in RFC 1036 (and 850, which it supersedes), and that's for Usenet messages. | but it is common practice among email clients to tread and sort | subjects based on removing any initial Re: thus you should avoid | inserting anything *before* the Re: because many clients will not | associate such articles with the original... Exactly! Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 4 04:56:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id EAA23205 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 04:54:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id EAA23190 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 04:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from vicric@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.8.2/8.7/PanixU1.3) id HAA10875 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 07:54:00 -0500 (EST) From: Vicki Richman Message-Id: <199612041254.HAA10875@panix2.panix.com> Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 07:53:59 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199612040104.BAA14384@java.aboard.co.uk> from "Nick Perry" at Dec 4, 96 01:04:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Nick Perry has written: > IIRC I don't think this is mentioned in any RFC but it is common practice > among email clients to tread and sort subjects based on removing any initial > Re: thus you should avoid inserting anything *before* the Re: because many > clients will not associate such articles with the original... I believe there's an 'In-reply-to: ' header that can maintain a thread. If you choose the "reply" option, many mailers insert the original message-id into that header. Also, a client could be configured to look for a code string as the first word of the subject header. If the string is not there, the client proceeds as usual. Finding that string, the client could assign the message to the particular folder for the list. Then the client could discard the string and use the rest of the header to construct a thread. Therefore, I still prefer that the identifying string always be the first word of the subject. Far from confusing a mail client, I believe that would make sorting more efficient. Regards, Vicki From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 4 06:58:29 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA00431 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id GAA00423 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 29137 invoked by uid 305); 4 Dec 1996 14:26:34 -0000 Message-ID: <19961204142634.29136.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: Vicki Richman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" References: <199612041254.HAA10875@panix2.panix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29126.849709592.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 09:26:32 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk the client i use sorts subjects by discarding ^Re: so schemes that do other things (Re[N], [Foo] Re: etc.) break my sorting. i suppose i can undo this damage in a filtering rule but it does seem more polite to avoid breaking things that have been working for some time. this does seem to be standard operating procedure for wintel programmers though. -------- In reply to: Therefore, I still prefer that the identifying string always be the first word of the subject. Far from confusing a mail client, I believe that would make sorting more efficient. --------------------- -- paul pjg@acsu.Buffalo.EDU |public keys at: pjg@ubvm | http://urth.acsu.Buffalo.EDU/~pjg/key.html if the above contains opinions they are mine unless marked otherwise. From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 4 07:10:32 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA01680 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:44:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ec2.earthchannel.com (ec2.earthchannel.com [205.160.16.65]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id GAA01638 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:44:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ec2 (205.160.16.66) by ec3.earthchannel.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.82) with SMTP id ; Wed, 04 Dec 1996 09:42:59 -0500 Message-ID: Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Gess Shankar" Organization: Earth Channel Communications LLC To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:42:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Troublesome address Reply-to: gess@earthchannel.com X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have a subscriber from Italy whose from: header looks like this by the time it gets here. From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Albert_Fr=F6hlich_=3Coptima=40omninet.it=3E?=@domain.it I have changed the actual domain name. Question is: Are MTAs and smtp servers supposed to understand ISO-8859-1 character set? Somewhere along the line, the string has been munged (umlaut O became =F6 for example). I have put this address in the kill file, after advising the postmaster of this action, as this person keeps subscribing to a fairly high volume list and obviously mail cannot be delivered. Any comments on how to treat cases like this will be helpful. TIA Gess :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Gess Shankar pax vobiscum gess@earthchannel.com http://www.earthchannel.com Earth Channel Communications, LLC. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 4 10:46:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA22707 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:24:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from java.aboard.co.uk (java.aboard.co.uk [194.73.51.130]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA22689 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:24:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nick@localhost) by java.aboard.co.uk (8.8.3/8.6.9) id SAA05910; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:24:23 GMT From: Nick Perry Message-Id: <199612041824.SAA05910@java.aboard.co.uk> Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject" To: vicric@panix.com (Vicki Richman) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:24:23 +0000 (GMT) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199612041254.HAA10875@panix2.panix.com> from "Vicki Richman" at Dec 4, 96 07:53:59 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Vicki Richman wrote: > I believe there's an 'In-reply-to: ' header that can > maintain a thread. If you choose the "reply" option, many > mailers insert the original message-id into that header. > > Also, a client could be configured to look for a code string > as the first word of the subject header. If the string is > not there, the client proceeds as usual. > Therefore, I still prefer that the identifying string always > be the first word of the subject. Far from confusing a mail > client, I believe that would make sorting more efficient. So you are able to rewrite and redistribute the estimated forty different email clients on different platforms that users of my mailing lists are using... fine... but not breaking the Re: syntax is altogether easier! Nick -- Nick Perry | AboarD Boats & Yachts Market Ltd Webmaster Manager | 7a Fernshaw Road, LONDON, SW10 0TB. UK Mobile: +44 (0)973 566204 | Tel: +44 (0)171 460 0030 Fax: 0040 | http://www.aboard.co.uk From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 4 12:56:32 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA07152 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:34:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from llama.swcp.com (llama.swcp.com [198.59.115.19]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA07115 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:34:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by llama.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id NAA03886 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:33:44 -0700 Message-Id: <199612042033.NAA03886@llama.swcp.com> Subject: Yet another spamming subscriber To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:33:42 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The address "drblade@dux.isec.pt" is subscribing to lists for the explicit purpose of forwarding spam to them. You should consider refusing this account access to your lists. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 4 14:42:59 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA12467 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:03:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from colossus.arl.mil (colossus.arl.mil [131.218.204.98]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA12425 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 14:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [131.218.204.98] by colossus.arl.mil with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:07:09 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:07:09 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio) Subject: Re: Yet another spamming subscriber Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 13:33 12/4/96, Lazlo Nibble said: >The address "drblade@dux.isec.pt" is subscribing to lists for the explicit >purpose of forwarding spam to them. You should consider refusing this account >access to your lists. Though this is not an issue for me (my list is moderated-edit), it is of interest. Could you please tell us (okay, *me*) how you know that this person is subscribing for the explicit purpose of spamming these lists? Has he already started to spam them? Was he stupid enough to state his intention? Has he done this in the past? Thank you for alerting us to this. - Vince S. wavelet@colossus.arl.mil -- For info on HumourNet--the Internet's moderated mailing list for humor-- send the command INFO HUMORNET (only one U) to listproc@csf.colorado.edu -- Fight Spam on the Internet! From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 4 16:17:00 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA20326 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:04:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from llama.swcp.com (llama.swcp.com [198.59.115.19]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA20279 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:04:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by llama.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id RAA05266 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:03:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199612050003.RAA05266@llama.swcp.com> Subject: Re: Yet another spamming subscriber To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:03:49 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> The address "drblade@dux.isec.pt" is subscribing to lists for the >> explicit purpose of forwardinFrom list-managers-owner Thu Dec 5 07:33:40 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA29667 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from aamc.org (wpo.aamc.org [143.220.26.49]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id HAA29650 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:01:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from AAMC-Message_Server by aamc.org with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 05 Dec 1996 09:51:53 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 10:02:50 -0500 From: David Rodbard To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: How to prevent mail-loops with majordomo? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I would very much appreciate advice re: how to protect against mail-loops when using majordomo in the "reply to list" mode? (A number of our list owners and subscribers prefer the "Reply to List" option to the "Reply to Sender Only" option). Is there a way to automatically detect and abort a mail-loop in the absence of list-owner or operator intervention (e.g. at night and on weekends)? Thanks. From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 5 08:25:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA03381 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:53:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from math.psu.edu (leibniz.math.psu.edu [146.186.130.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id HAA03358 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:52:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from augusta.math.psu.edu (barr@augusta.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.2]) by math.psu.edu (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA24933; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:52:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (barr@localhost) by augusta.math.psu.edu (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA12976; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:52:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612051552.KAA12976@augusta.math.psu.edu> To: David Rodbard cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Reply-To: majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: How to prevent mail-loops with majordomo? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Dec 1996 10:02:50 EST." References: X-Face: $+9-wYg.[->94HJ{go[7Q]E!K&hUg7ZhLyCMyq_FU*ca0GazE>^/2BKLcK0bP-'%;Nn?M+am,jlSP>1K$iz@ %'v'FEW{@](U&Ed/}>ju3Ctlr!XwJ27Q)7h2a%"`sz;j:/3EC[mXi@*X@HE1]'ddq$ZX"ePsMyTkeg >zdML.SVvX1W`adGIUD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 10:52:47 -0500 From: Dave Barr Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , David Rodbard writes: >I would very much appreciate advice re: how to protect against mail-loops when >using majordomo in the "reply to list" mode? Simple. Don't do reply-to list. Setting Reply-To: to majordomo-users. This belongs there, not on list-managers. --Dave From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 5 11:03:13 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA11298 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:45:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from slug.swcp.com (slug.swcp.com [198.59.115.24]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA11284 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by slug.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id KAA20073 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:45:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199612051745.KAA20073@slug.swcp.com> Subject: How to prevent mail-loops with majordomo? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:45:19 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I would very much appreciate advice re: how to protect against mail-loops > when using majordomo in the "reply to list" mode? (A number of our list > owners and subscribers prefer the "Reply to List" option to the "Reply to > Sender Only" option). Is there a way to automatically detect and abort a > mail-loop in the absence of list-owner or operator intervention (e.g. at > night and on weekends)? No. You have to turn on administrivia and hack "resend" (or set taboo_headers if you're running 1.94) to watch for messages that "look like" loops but of course there's no way to tell what a loop is going to look like. If you don't want the mail loops that come from pointing replies back to the list, don't point replies back to the list -- unless a list's subscribers are unusually dim they should be able to figure out how to reply back to the list without it. (This question really belonged on majordomo-users . . . ) -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 5 15:58:08 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA10673 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (cu.nih.gov [128.231.64.111]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA10540 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:44:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612052344.PAA10540@miles.greatcircle.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:43:02 EST Subject: Re: Lyris Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Enterprise-wide network mailing lists are often entirely internal to the > enterprise and may well show NONE of the aggregation that we have been > discussing. Maybe, but it seems to me that the reverse is more likely to be true. That is, most enterprises have a small number of email hosts, as compared to the number of users. It's certainly true in our case. In particular, we have a list of all employees, with about 26,000 addresses on it (larger than most enterprises, I know). If, when we sent a message, to that list, a separate copy were sent for every recipient, it would make several of our email systems get bogged down and, in some cases, die a horrible death. We currently use 100 recipients per copy. It's the largest number that an SMTP server is required to accept. Our smaller internal mailing lists also tend to have multiple subscribers from the same host. Eric said that aggregation does not matter for LAN-based email systems. I have to disagree. It certainly does matter for Microsoft Mail. Sending a separate copy for every recipient will significantly increase the time taken to pass through the MS Mail SMTP Gateway. Aggregation by MX host would also help, as there are multiple MX records pointing at the same gateway. From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 5 18:13:55 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA21647 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:25:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA21605 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:24:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29501; Thu, 5 Dec 96 17:25:02 PST Received: from tardis by tymix.Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 5 Dec 0 17:25:01 PDT Received: by tardis.tymnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04770; Thu, 5 Dec 96 17:24:57 PST Date: Thu, 5 Dec 96 17:24:57 PST From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Message-Id: <9612060124.AA04770@tardis.tymnet.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: re: Lyris Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > On a LISTSERV list that I'm on, it seems that To: is always rewritten > to be the listname/description, regardless of what the user put > there, as in: > > To: Multiple recipients of list K2000 > > I don't know if this is the default behavior or not. How do people > feel about this? > > On the positive side, it gives simple mail filters which use the To: > line something to work with. On the negative side, it disobeys the > rule of not rewriting headers. Don't forget that for some moderated mailing lists, the original "To:" field is of the form shown. For example: From: Frank da Cruz To: C-Kermit Developers and Testers Subject: C-Kermit 6.0 is released Bcc: big, long, list, of, users, who, signed, up, to, get, notified In this case, I'm talking about a list that only the moderator is allowed to post to; replies are NOT allowed to go to the list has a whole. How well does Lyris handle this sort of non-interactive mailing list? -Joe From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 03:43:27 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id DAA17308 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 03:27:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id DAA17292 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 03:27:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612061127.DAA17292@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <7.2CC92A48@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:26:31 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 5416; Fri, 06 Dec 96 12:20:01 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 6580; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:20:00 +0100 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:31:53 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Lyris To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Roger Fajman In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:43:02 EST from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:43:02 EST Roger Fajman said: >Eric said that aggregation does not matter for LAN-based email systems. >I have to disagree. It certainly does matter for Microsoft Mail. Right, what I meant is that aggregation is not necessary in that case as a method for allowing the MTA serving the lists to reach sufficient throughput, because the limiting factor is the speed of the handful of gateways that the messages have to go through in a typical corporate setup. Some gateways may process aggregated messages faster, for instance because they only support one connection :-) Eric From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 03:47:40 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA08060 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:54:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id BAA05386 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:22:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-961106) id UAA03388; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:20:01 -0800 Received: from synergy.transbay.net(207.105.6.2) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma003377; Thu Dec 5 20:19:40 1996 Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA07689; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:18:43 GMT Message-Id: <199612052018.UAA07689@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:16:51 +7 Subject: re: Lyris CC: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Don't forget that for some moderated mailing lists, the original "To:" field > is of the form shown. For example: > > From: Frank da Cruz > To: C-Kermit Developers and Testers > Subject: C-Kermit 6.0 is released > Bcc: big, long, list, of, users, who, signed, up, to, get, notified > > In this case, I'm talking about a list that only the moderator is allowed to > post to; replies are NOT allowed to go to the list has a whole. Currently, the To: will be each recipient's email address. There is no BCC list. You can hard-code the Reply-To: and From: to be whatever you like. In some cases, with announcements, you do not want the author's email address visible in the message (either from or reply-to), but rather some generic address, such as kermit@columbia.edu As mentioned previously, Lyris (in the next version) will allow you to leave To: untouched, or rewrite to the recipient's address, or rewrite it with the text you specify. In the current version, To: is always the recipient's address. > How well does Lyris handle this sort of non-interactive mailing > list? You can define a list as post-by-list-admin-only. Also, you can bulk import recipients into Lyris using a database program (MS Access, for example), or use a supplied program import program, or by writing your own shim using our Lyris/Perl toolkit, or by using the web interface. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 05:23:15 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA24197 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 05:11:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.ecentral.com ([204.227.4.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id FAA24161 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 05:11:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from 204.227.4.38 (ppp18.ecentral.com [204.227.4.38]) by www.ecentral.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA08893 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:09:53 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32A81C26.600E@ecentral.com> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 06:14:14 -0700 From: Cindy Stanley Reply-To: connect@ecentral.com Organization: Unschooling List X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Large Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Okay, here's a question that's been on my mind for a couple of weeks... I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with *thousands* of subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would attract such a huge subscribership? How long have they been up and running? Just so this doesn't seem like an overly idiotic question, the reason I'm asking is because my list has been up since 8/95 and we now have between 300-400 subscribers. I thought *that* was a pretty fair amount of people/variable personalities on one list... I can't even imagine hitting the 1,000 mark! TIA, Cindy Stanley UL Mom connect@ecentral.com There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered. - Nelson Mandela From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 09:23:33 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA13512 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:59:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.home.vix.com (gw.home.vix.com [192.5.5.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA13452 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from UUzorch@localhost) by gw.home.vix.com (8.8.3/) with UUCP id IAA20207 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:32:09 -0800 (PST) X-btw: vix.com is also gw.home.vix.com and vixie.sf.ca.us Received: (from news@localhost) by zorch.sf-bay.org (8.8.2/8.8.2) id IAA20787 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 08:30:08 -0800 (PST) Newsgroups: zorch.lists.list-managers Path: zorch.sf-bay.org!scott From: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org (Scott Hazen Mueller) Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Distribution: zorch Reply-To: scott@zorch.sf-bay.org Organization: At Home; Salida, CA Message-ID: References: <1996Dec6.133013.8389@zorch.sf-bay.org> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: localhost.sf-bay.org Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:30:07 GMT Lines: 24 Apparently-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with *thousands* of >subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would attract such a huge >subscribership? How long have they been up and running? I ran for one brief and painful period the newsletter mailing list for the Travelocity (http://www.travelocity.com/) Web site. The initial list was seeded with ~9000 addresses of people who had filled out marketing surveys and checked "yes, I want to get more information by e-mail". Between the time we put up our subscription form (early August) and when I delivered the October 1st edition, we had grown to ~25,000 subscribers and were adding a couple of hundred a day, about 1,000/week since weekends were much slower. Delivering that first newsletter with a UNIX mailer (zmailer) was nearly an all-day hands-on affair, and enough to convince me that industrial-grade tools would be worth the money... I nearly quit that job when they tried to order me to send UCE to the entire registered user base of Travelocity (~250,000 users), and I did ultimately leave to go work for someone who offered me a job when I vented on the spam@zorch mailing list about being asked to spam. Anyway. \scott From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 09:40:54 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA15744 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:26:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA14798 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-961106) id JAA07988; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:09:21 -0800 Received: from colossus.arl.mil(131.218.204.98) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma007969; Fri Dec 6 09:08:37 1996 Received: from [131.218.204.98] by colossus.arl.mil with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:13:42 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora for Cray Y-MP Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:13:43 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio) Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Cc: Cindy Stanley Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 06:14 12/6/96, Cindy Stanley said: >I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with *thousands* of >subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would attract such a huge >subscribership? How long have they been up and running? HumourNet (11,000 direct distribution subscribers, roughly 30-40,000 on secondary distribution to BBSs, other mailings lists that redistribute HumourNet mailings, and the like) has technically been around for just over two years. However, for its first 8 months of life, it was a small private list, and "went public" (stock offerings?) in July 1995 with 65 (or so) members. So, for all intents and purposes, it has been around for 17 months. It is a "moderated-edit" humor list -- though, for possibly obvious reasons, the -noedit lists grow somewhat faster. (For example, I know of several newcomers on the moderated-noedit humor mailing list scene that already have a few thousand subscribers.) A long-time runner on the moderated-noedit humor mailing list side is Steve Willoughby's "Oracle Service Humor List," probably the single best store-and-forward moderated humor mailing list on the 'Net, with (last I heard) more than 22,000 subscribers. BTW, when I first went public with HumourNet, I listed it in the List of Publicly-Accessible Mailing Lists (PAML); this was responsible for a big boost in our subscribership early on. Disclaimer: I don't work for PAML. I have no association with Oracle and/or Steve Willoughby. My employer agrees with nothing that I say. In fact, my employer doesn't even like the way I dress, but that's another story. All statements made by me represent the official policy of the United States government, since Bill takes orders directly from me (and I take mine from Hillary). And if you believe that, I have a nukular warhead to sell you. Claimer: I *do* work for HumourNet Communications, Ltd., but only nights (late ones) and weekends. And they don't agree with anything I say, either. - Vince S. wavelet@colossus.arl.mil -- For info on HumourNet--the Internet's moderated mailing list for humor-- send the command INFO HUMORNET (only one U) to listproc@csf.colorado.edu -- Fight Spam on the Internet! From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 10:10:42 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA17241 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.102.244.42] (pb520.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id JAA17224; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:55:45 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 09:56:32 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Cc: Cindy Stanley Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >** Sometime around 06:14 12/6/96, Cindy Stanley said: > >>I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with >>*thousands* of >>subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would attract such a huge >>subscribership? How long have they been up and running? Here are our current counts: 4608 firewalls 4267 firewalls-digest 286 firewalls-performance 595 list-managers 336 list-managers-digest 2104 majordomo-announce 687 majordomo-users 257 majordomo-docs 345 majordomo-workers I tend to group lists into two categories: discussion lists, and announcement lists. List-Managers is an example of a discussion list; these lists tend to have fewer subscribers, but carry more messages (though the messages are often shorter). Majordomo-Announce is an example of an announcement list; these lists tend to have more subscribers, but fewer messages (though the messages are often longer). I'd consider the moderated humor lists and the travel agency "special offer" lists that other posters in this thread discussed to be announcement lists. One of the big differences between discussion and announcement lists is how quickly messages need to be processed. With an announcement list, the messages going out often aren't time-critical; it doesn't matter exactly when the recipients receive the messages, as long as it's within some reasonable period of time (24 hours, say). With a discussion list, it's much more important to get the messages delivered quickly; if they aren't, it becomes hard for folks to follow and participate in the discussion. Digests are an interesting way to make a discussion list look and feel like an announcement list; it's harder to participate in the discussions, but you get a smaller number of larger messages. If someone just wants to lurk, this is better for both them and for the list maintainer. The Firewalls list is an interesting example of a big, active discussion list (thousands of subscribers, anywhere from 30-100 messages per day, averaging about 45 messages per day). We've certainly learned a lot about how to make lists work by trying to keep up with the load that Firewalls generates. -Brent ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041 ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Internet Tutorials from the Experts! From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 11:07:53 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA20504 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:58:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uumail3.netcom.com [163.179.3.53]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA20485 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from znyx.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with SMTP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1) id KAA17310; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:39:34 -0800 Received: from alan.znyx.com by znyx.com (5.65/1.35) id AA03340; Fri, 6 Dec 96 10:39:43 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961206183955.007091c8@znyx.com> X-Sender: alan@znyx.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 10:39:55 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Alan Deikman Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Just so this doesn't seem like an overly idiotic question, the reason I'm >asking is because my list has been up since 8/95 and we now have between >300-400 subscribers. I thought *that* was a pretty fair amount of >people/variable personalities on one list... I can't even imagine hitting the >1,000 mark! The pci-sig mailing list is holding steady about 1400 members. Currently a posting takes about 4 minutes to process. My observation is that there is some threshold at which a list can operate in terms of membership and number of messages/day. The level seems dependent on the subject, and members seem to subscribe and unsubscribe to keep it at that level. Has anyone else noticed this? -------------------------------- Alan Deikman, ZNYX Corporation alan@znyx.com From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 12:25:32 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA25739 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.ecentral.com ([204.227.4.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id MAA25720 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:21:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from 204.227.4.47 (ppp27.ecentral.com [204.227.4.47]) by www.ecentral.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA21105; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:19:42 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32A880E3.3AE7@ecentral.com> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 13:24:03 -0700 From: Cindy Stanley Reply-To: connect@ecentral.com Organization: Unschooling List X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vince Sabio CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 06:14 12/6/96, Cindy Stanley said: > >I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with *thousands* of > >subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would attract such a huge > >subscribership? How long have they been up and running? Vince Sabio answered: > HumourNet (11,000 direct distribution subscribers, roughly 30-40,000 on > secondary distribution to BBSs, other mailings lists that redistribute > HumourNet mailings, and the like) has technically been around for just > over two years. However, for its first 8 months of life, it was a small > private list, and "went public" (stock offerings?) in July 1995 with 65 > (or so) members. Went public? Sorry for sounding so ignorant, but how do you "go public" with a mailing list? > BTW, when I first went public with HumourNet, I listed it in the List > of Publicly-Accessible Mailing Lists (PAML); this was responsible for > a big boost in our subscribership early on. > Thanks. This is good info to know. :-) What are the drawbacks of listing a mailing list with PAML? The only one I can think of would be the extra junk-mail advertising. My mailing list deals with homeschooling discussions and I get quite a few unsolicited "buy our wonderful curriculum" advertisments as it is. Enough for me to have recently closed the UL (Unschooling List) to subscribers only. Cindy UL Mom connect@ecentral.com There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered. - Nelson Mandela From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 12:43:28 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA26587 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:31:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.ecentral.com ([204.227.4.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id MAA26570; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:31:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from 204.227.4.47 (ppp27.ecentral.com [204.227.4.47]) by www.ecentral.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA21445; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:29:58 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32A8834C.14BD@ecentral.com> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 13:34:20 -0700 From: Cindy Stanley Reply-To: connect@ecentral.com Organization: Unschooling List X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brent Chapman CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 06:14 12/6/96, Cindy Stanley said: > >>I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with > >>*thousands* of > >>subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would attract such a huge > >>subscribership? How long have they been up and running? Brent Chapman replied: > Here are our current counts: > > 4608 firewalls > 4267 firewalls-digest > 286 firewalls-performance > 595 list-managers > 336 list-managers-digest > 2104 majordomo-announce > 687 majordomo-users > 257 majordomo-docs > 345 majordomo-workers Ahhh, all of these are familiar to me, except for the "firewalls" lists. Could you explain what these are? > I tend to group lists into two categories: discussion lists, and > announcement lists. This is a great explanation, Brent. As you probably can tell, most of this is new to me and so this helps a lot. :-) > The Firewalls list is an interesting example of a big, active discussion > list (thousands of subscribers, anywhere from 30-100 messages per day, > averaging about 45 messages per day). We've certainly learned a lot about > how to make lists work by trying to keep up with the load that Firewalls > generates. The Unschooling List has fewer subscribers as you already know, but it will generate between 25-150 emails per day. The average is about 50. (Verbose subscribers I guess) ;-) Is this unusual for such a small list? Cindy UL Mom connect@ecentral.com There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered. - Nelson Mandela From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 13:38:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA03552 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:35:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from colossus.arl.mil (colossus.arl.mil [131.218.204.98]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA03515 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:35:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [131.218.204.98] by colossus.arl.mil with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:39:35 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora for Cray Y-MP Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:39:35 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio) Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Cc: connect@ecentral.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >** Sometime around 06:14 12/6/96, Cindy Stanley said: > >> >I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with *thousands* of >> >subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would attract such a huge >> >subscribership? How long have they been up and running? > >Vince Sabio answered: > >> HumourNet (11,000 direct distribution subscribers, roughly 30-40,000 on >> secondary distribution to BBSs, other mailings lists that redistribute >> HumourNet mailings, and the like) has technically been around for just >> over two years. However, for its first 8 months of life, it was a small >> private list, and "went public" (stock offerings?) in July 1995 with 65 >> (or so) members. ** and Cindy Stanley inquired: >Went public? Sorry for sounding so ignorant, but how do you "go public" >with a mailing list? Basically, it means that the list is now a publicly-held corporation, traded on the NYSE. Okay, I'm lying. It means that opened the list to the public. Previously, it was a "private" list; all subscribe requests went through, and were approved by, me. No one whom I did not know, in some capacity, was allowed to subscribe. (Well, okay, friends of friends were allowed in.) When I "went public," I opened up subscriptions to anyone, and also started advertising the list. *RE: PAML: >Thanks. This is good info to know. :-) If PAML is good info to know, then Liszt is possibly better to know: I currently receive more subscriptions via Liszt than PAML. (Vee hef vays uff knowing frrrrom vayer yoo aR subscrribink. ;-) Probably about an order of magnitude more right at the moment, though a couple of months ago it was only a factor of maybe 3 or 4. Liszt seems to be growing in popularity pretty fast. >What are the drawbacks of listing a mailing list with PAML? The only one I can >think of would be the extra junk-mail advertising. My mailing list deals with >homeschooling discussions and I get quite a few unsolicited "buy our wonderful >curriculum" advertisments as it is. Enough for me to have recently closed the UL >(Unschooling List) to subscribers only. You've hit upon the primary drawback, which is "spamming." I cannot confirm where Kevin Lipsitz found my list address, but PAML was the only place I was listed when he first tried to spam my list -- and that was (the first attempt, of many more to follow) about 6 weeks after HumourNet first appeared on PAML. The other drawback is size -- and this might not be a drawback at all, depending on many different factors. At the time HumourNet first appeared on PAML, I was running the list on a freeware Mac version of Majordomo called "Macjordomo" , which has a 1000-subscriber-per-list limit.* The list grew so quickly once I went public with it -- and remember, this was primarily boosted at that time by PAML -- that I soon outgrew the server and had to look elsewhere for alternate [low-income] housing. Aside from that, I really can't think of *any* drawbacks to listing on PAML. And as far as UCE is concerned, spammers can find list addresses in lots of different places, so please don't misinterpret my statements as an indictment of PAML. *There is another version available which increases this limit to either 4000 or 4500 subscribers, but it's something of a memory hog if I recall correctly. Overall, though, Macj is a *very* nice MLM. VERY nice. Disclaimers (but of course): I have no association with Lizst, save that HumourNet is liszted there . I have no association with Leuca Software or Macjordomo's author, Michele Fuortes, save that HumourNet used to be hosted on a Macj server. Furthermore, *no one* agrees with my opinion, and my employer wholeheartedly agrees with that. - Vince S. wavelet@colossus.arl.mil -- For info on HumourNet--the Internet's moderated mailing list for humor-- send the command INFO HUMORNET (only one U) to listproc@csf.colorado.edu -- Fight Spam on the Internet! From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 14:53:07 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA08746 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom10.netcom.com (netcom10.netcom.com [192.100.81.120]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA08687 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 14:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom10.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id PAA14367; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:37:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:37:29 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom10 To: List Managers List Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Cindy Stanley wrote: > I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with > *thousands* of subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would > attract such a huge subscribership? How long have they been up and > running? I think it just depends on how much the list appeals to the masses. A list discussing the evolution of the snail darter will have a pretty small following. A list that humorously illuminates the human condition will have a large one -- my list has about 155,000 readers now. I think it's because the topic is interesting and fun, AND I keep traffic down; just one transmission per week, and I've never done a separate admin message. I've been online since July 1994. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 18:41:51 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA00952 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 18:20:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id SAA00879 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 18:20:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-961106) id RAA10437; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:59:29 -0800 Received: from flounder.fishy.net(206.156.56.34) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma010373; Fri Dec 6 17:58:21 1996 Received: from sturgeon.fishy.net (sturgeon.fishy.net [172.16.1.3]) by prawn.fishy.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA05454; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:57:58 -0500 Received: (from bonnie@localhost) by sturgeon.fishy.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA29992; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:57:56 -0500 From: Bonnie Scott Message-Id: <199612070157.UAA29992@sturgeon.fishy.net> Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:57:55 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Brent Chapman" at Dec 6, 96 09:56:32 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm not trying to brag here, just adding my $.02. (below, P* means Prodigy) We've got eighteen lists with over a thousand subscribers. (Out of about 200 public, closed and internal mailing lists.) Astrology, genealogy, and antique-collecting are the largest ones operated by non-P* staff--they are run by the moderators of highly successful P* communities, so they promote their lists quite effectively. (Genealogy is a perennial favorite topic for online use.) Without exception, all the large lists are moderated. The largest UNmoderated list is our "comedy" list, with seven hundred or so subscribers. This is an extremely active list, with about two Meg posted during the month of October, about 734 messages. We always get subscribers who are shocked by the volume, and many leave the list. We have finally added digesting to our unmoderated lists (only took me a year to figure it out, so all you out with digest problems shouldn't feel bad.) and this has made the list owners VERY happy--the busy lists got a lot of requests for digests. The very largest lists are things like "Moneymail." From the info file: "Moneymail is a newsletter for money-minded members from Prodigy's Business and Finance content team. It covers news you can use about Prodigy's Business and Finance domain, including upcoming chat sessions, Interest Group developments, and other resources for online investors and businesspeople." In other words, announcement-only lists about Prodigy's content for Prodigy members. Occasionally we'll do targetted mailings (TO OUR OWN MEMBERS ONLY) to drum up subscriptions: the moneymail one was highly successful, with a response rate of over 1%. We make the return address be "listname-request" and tell the members to hit reply and just type in the word "subscribe." This method of getting subscribers is not recommended unless you own your own online service. :) Another 80 lists have between 100 and 1000 subscribers. They vary from rarely-used to even busier than the comedy list. If a list owner wants to run a "chatty" list, we (as the majordomo-owners) consider that their perogative (sp?), although we warn them that they will turn off some potential subscribers. (Their only tool for controlling the volume is communicating the list's policy to the subscribers, or switching to moderated.) We are considering a "high-volume" warning tag next to their list's description on our mailing lists Web site, http://goodstuff.prodigy.com/Lists/ There are maybe six lists with over a Meg of postings each month. I absolutely agree with Brent that size matters more on unmoderated mailing lists. With our Pentium, 5000 addresses go out in a few minutes to our outbound mailer, and get delivered very quickly. With 50,000 -- the maximum batch we use for "mass mailings" (TO OUR OWN MEMBERS ONLY), it takes about six hours, but these are non-time-dependant. The story behind those is that we will break it up into batches if given a list with > 50,000, and I tell the requestor that this (majordomo) is NOT the ideal tool for the job, but usually it's an "emergency." (Definition of emergency: they just found out that the normal PDM (Prodigy Direct Mail) system requires a few weeks lead time and is a major PITA.) If they are OK with a delivery spanning several days, 50,000 at a time, I go ahead, figuring it's worth the brownie points. I once did a large mailing like this all at once for a benchmark... 150,000 address took about 2 and a half days on the Pentium. Thus the 50,000 limit. We are upgrading soon (gosh, I've been saying that for a while) to a 43P (IBM RS/6000), and I'll post the benchmarks for that when I get them. But the important thing to note is that it's not for the volume, but for ease in backing up the machine and 'cause we eventually need to run a custom mailer on it for Prodigy Internet. We deal with the volume by only running sendmail every 5 minutes, which means you will never get a 10-second response to your majordomo admin request, but the load on the machine never gets dangerous, and the mailq remains reasonable. For our highly successful mailing list program at Prodigy we owe a great deal to all the hard-working, rarely-thanked Majordomo developers. THANK YOU ALL IF YOU'RE ON THIS LIST! If you know of a list that needs a home, check out http://goodstuff.prodigy.com/Lists/application.htm Bonnie Scott Prodigy, Inc. From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 20:24:20 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA15149 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:08:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from burnout.cts.com (burnout.cts.com [204.216.216.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA15114 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:07:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from donews.cts.com (root@donews.cts.com [192.188.72.21]) by burnout.cts.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA01739 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 20:06:50 -0800 Received: from fatcity.com by donews.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vWE2G-00003ZC; Fri, 6 Dec 96 20:06 PST Received: by fatcity.com (Wildcat) id 23182W Fri, 06 Dec 1996 20:00:16 GMT From: bruceb@fatcity.com (Bruce Bergman) Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 19:59:02 GMT Message-Id: <849902342@fatcity.com> Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -> The story behind those is that we will break it up into batches if given a -> list with > 50,000, and I tell the requestor that this (majordomo) is NOT -> the ideal tool for the job, but usually it's an "emergency." -> (Definition of emergency: they just found out that the normal PDM (Prodigy -> Direct Mail) system requires a few weeks lead time and is a major PITA.) -> If they are OK with a delivery spanning several days, 50,000 at a time, -> I go ahead, figuring it's worth the brownie points. I once did a -> large mailing like this all at once for a benchmark... 150,000 address -> took about 2 and a half days on the Pentium. Thus the 50,000 limit. You know, this (and a couple other recent postings) really has me stymied. Bear with me a second, please... Here's my situation. I chose an unusual platform combination. I run Windows NT with Mustang's WIN Server software. I'm currently running the majority of my Internet activities on one Pentium 120 node. At my site, I have about 17 lists, seven of which have subscriber counts above 500 raw entries. When I first got on this platform, there was NO mailing list software, so I wrote my own. It's a combination of Perl 5.0 and Mustang's wcCODE/wcSDK. All total about 6000-7000 lines of code. When I process an incoming posting, it takes me about *10 seconds* to resend to all subscribers. Not counting the actual delivery time, mind you -- I'm speaking purely of the process of validating a user, finding out what the destination is, checking for commands accidently posted in the message, parsing headers, and actually generating the files for the outbound users. Even on the biggest list (753 subscribers), this takes less than 10 seconds. Delivery time obviously takes longer, but it's so hard to measure consistent numbers what with varying server loads during the day, connection problems, other aspects of the line usage, etc. When I read these recent benchmark figures, I was curious, so I went ahead and created a dummy list of 50,344 subscribers (1.5 meg file) and had it toss an arbitrary 144 line message that had been posted to another list earlier today. When I ran it on my unloaded machine, it took 1:59 (one minute, 59 seconds) to process all 50,344 subscribers. Are you folks counting delivery time in your benchmarks? Surely you must be, because I can't imagine processing taking as long as some of the results I'm hearing. I mean, yes, my mailing list software probably does less than Majordomo and the others, but it's not THAT different for an average posting, and it DOES have quite a bit of validity checking and smarts built into it. So I can't be an unusual exception. Interesting... thanks, bruce From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 6 23:26:09 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA12086 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.ecentral.com ([204.227.4.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id XAA12031 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:17:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from 204.227.4.31 (ppp11.ecentral.com [204.227.4.31]) by www.ecentral.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA08385; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:16:07 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32A91ABC.63EE@ecentral.com> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 00:20:28 -0700 From: Cindy Stanley Reply-To: connect@ecentral.com Organization: Unschooling List X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vince Sabio CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Cindy Stanley inquired: > >Went public? Sorry for sounding so ignorant, but how do you "go public" > >with a mailing list? Vince Sabio then responded (in part): > When I "went public," I opened > up subscriptions to anyone, and also started advertising the list. Ahhhh, I see. I erroneously thought that *all* mailing lists were public, or at least semi-public (meaning all subscribers had to approved and couldn't auto subscribe). Anyway, FWIW, my list is a public list. B-) (insert Cindy musing a little here...Would it really be worth it to install MajorD just to have a private list with your friends? Hmmm...) > The other drawback is size -- and this might not be a drawback at all, > depending on many different factors. At the time HumourNet first > appeared on PAML, I was running the list on a freeware Mac version of > Majordomo called "Macjordomo" , > which has a 1000-subscriber-per-list limit.* The list grew so quickly > once I went public with it -- and remember, this was primarily boosted > at that time by PAML -- that I soon outgrew the server and had to look > elsewhere for alternate [low-income] housing. This information-laden paragraph spawns a number of questions... First, I don't run the list from my own computer. It's run from my ISP and I just maintain it remotely. (And then there are those days that I only remotely maintain it...but I digress.) I have a Mac also. A PowerMac 7200/90 to be exact. 16 mgs of RAM or 32 mgs if you count RamDoubler, and a 500 mg harddrive. I've heard of the Mac version of MajorD but I don't know if my computer would be powerful enough to run the list from here. Also, it couldn't be run from an unlimited ISP account, could it? Wouldn't I need to get my own domain something-or-other and be hooked up to the Net 24 hours a day? How did you know the subscriber limit with this software you had, Vince? Is this info in one of the MajorD FAQs, READ MEs or list-owner documentation and I just missed it? I'm running version 1.93. I'd love to get the list info out to more homeschoolers, but, if there's a limit to the # of subscribers, that's definately a consideration I need to keep in mind. Thanks to everyone for sharing all your knowledge and list-owning savvy with me. It's really, really been helpful! :-D Cindy UL Mom connect@ecentral.com "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path, and leave a trail." -Ralph Waldo Emerson From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 11:38:09 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA05858 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:23:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ico.com (psycho.ico.net [207.111.192.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA05851 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.94.135.204] (host-3.fogcity.com [204.94.135.204]) by ico.com (8.8.2/8.8.2/103196) with SMTP id LAA11521; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:23:04 -0800 Message-Id: <199612071923.LAA11521@ico.com> Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Date: Sat, 7 Dec 96 11:23:03 -0800 x-sender: fcity001@mail.ico.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Will Mayall To: "Bruce Bergman" , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Are you folks counting delivery time in your benchmarks? I think that delivery time is (or should be) the real focus of the discussion. >From what I can tell, it is essentially impossible to devise a benchmark that runs in a controlled environment that measures delivery time for a mailing list server that runs in the "real world." There are simply too many variables over which the server has no control. It seems that real world examples of lists are the only way to reasonably judge the performance of mailing list servers. Will __________________________________________________________________________ Will Mayall http://www.fogcity.com President, Fog City Software From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 12:23:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA10438 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:12:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA10424 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:12:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1035 invoked by uid 305); 7 Dec 1996 20:11:33 -0000 Message-ID: <19961207201133.1034.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: Will Mayall cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: <199612071923.LAA11521@ico.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1023.849989490.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 15:11:30 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk the mlm and the delivery agent (mta) should be considered two independent modules. since delivery time shouldn't be coupled to the mlm it doesn't matter in measuring mlm performance. you can measure mlm and mta performance in a controlled environment. you should also be able to measure the interaction between the mlm and the mta (which should be the only mlm contribution to delivery time). my mlm can turn around a message to a 15k subscriber list in about a second. my mta delivers about 500k messages a day with fair latency. it can be configured to deliver as many as my outbound link can stand with latency a variable that i can reduce at my end to nearly zero while using modest hardware. -------- In reply to: I think that delivery time is (or should be) the real focus of the discussion. --------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 12:52:54 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA13115 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:50:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id MAA13049 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:50:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from Mailbox.mcs.com (Mailbox.mcs.com [192.160.127.87]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id OAA17998 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:49:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from Mars.mcs.net (kvk@Mars.mcs.com [192.160.127.85]) by Mailbox.mcs.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id OAA02294 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:49:34 -0600 (CST) Received: (from kvk@localhost) by Mars.mcs.net (8.8.2/8.8.2) id OAA28232 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:49:33 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:49:33 -0600 (CST) From: Kevin Kinder Message-Id: <199612072049.OAA28232@Mars.mcs.net> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: Cindy Stanley > > I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with *thousands* of > subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would attract such a huge > subscribership? How long have they been up and running? There are a lot of music-oriented lists out there with sizable readerships. I run the Bruce Springsteen mailing list (luckytown), and we're up to 3900 subscribers. The list growth seems to follow the growth of the 'net, it was <100 people at the start of '91. We've gone from being an exploder list to digest to moderated digest in that time to manage the growth. I'm not sure about other music-oriented lists, but I know there are several Grateful Dead mailing lists which are much larger. Kevin Kinder kvk@mcs.com From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 13:38:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA17360 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:17:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ico.com (psycho.ico.net [207.111.192.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA17208 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:16:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.94.135.204] (host-3.fogcity.com [204.94.135.204]) by ico.com (8.8.2/8.8.2/103196) with SMTP id NAA20823 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:16:13 -0800 Message-Id: <199612072116.NAA20823@ico.com> Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Date: Sat, 7 Dec 96 13:16:11 -0800 x-sender: fcity001@mail.ico.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Will Mayall To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>I think that delivery time is (or should be) the real focus of the >>discussion. > >the mlm and the delivery agent (mta) should be considered two independent >modules. since delivery time shouldn't be coupled to the mlm it doesn't >matter in measuring mlm performance. Unless the MLM and the MTA are one and the same. Our product does both. It seems that that the bottom line (at least for discussion lists) is how fast is the time between receipt of the message by the mailing list and receipt of the message by the subscribers of the list. Since the time to process the message should generally be relatively short, I can't see too much point in discussing the performance of the mlm on its own. Will __________________________________________________________________________ Will Mayall http://www.fogcity.com President, Fog City Software From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 13:53:04 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA20077 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:43:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA20012 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:42:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3781 invoked by uid 305); 7 Dec 1996 21:42:26 -0000 Message-ID: <19961207214225.3780.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: connect@ecentral.com cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: <32A81C26.600E@ecentral.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3770.849994943.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 16:42:24 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk see http://www.lsoft.com/lists/listref.html click on: with 1,000 subscribers or more that will show you the advertised listserv lists with more than 1,000. i think there are about 400. i doubt many of them have date of birth but you can read a description (if provided). there are certainly many others that are less visible. -------- In reply to: Okay, here's a question that's been on my mind for a couple of weeks... I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with *thousands* of subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would attract such a huge subscribership? How long have they been up and running? --------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 14:07:55 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA21647 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA21628 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:04:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4326 invoked by uid 305); 7 Dec 1996 22:03:20 -0000 Message-ID: <19961207220320.4325.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: Will Mayall cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: <199612072116.NAA20823@ico.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4315.849996197.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 17:03:18 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk that seems like a restrictive architecture. i would guess that all high-performance mlm's have split mlm/mta designs. of course i need to define high-performance so let's say 100k messages a day to 10k subscribers across 1,000 lists with 90% of messages delivered in 100 seconds (with a factor of 10 increase in reserve available) using pentium-100 class hardware (one or two machines). the time to process a single message should be short. but comprehensive mlm software does a lot more. the mta shouldn't have to pay for that. of course if you sell a combined mlm/mta you might not see the point of the alternative. -------- In reply to: Unless the MLM and the MTA are one and the same. Our product does both. ... Since the time to process the message should generally be relatively short, I can't see too much point in discussing the performance of the mlm on its own. --------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 16:11:38 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA29383 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:35:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA29320 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:35:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp7.netcom.com [163.179.3.7]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA27583 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:11:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from duke.sagarmatha.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1) id KAA29662; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:08:22 -0800 Received: by duke (Smail3.1.28.1 #64) id m0vWPQ0-000gdCC; Sat, 7 Dec 96 08:16 PST Message-Id: From: james@sagarmatha.com (James C. Armstrong) Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: connect@ecentral.com Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:16:00 -0800 (PST) Cc: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <32A91ABC.63EE@ecentral.com> from "Cindy Stanley" at Dec 7, 96 00:20:28 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk According to unnamed sources, Cindy Stanley is alleged to have written => Ahhhh, I see. I erroneously thought that *all* mailing lists were public, or at => least semi-public (meaning all subscribers had to approved and couldn't auto => subscribe). Anyway, FWIW, my list is a public list. B-) => => (insert Cindy musing a little here...Would it really be worth it to install MajorD => just to have a private list with your friends? Hmmm...) Yes. Ignoring the fact that a private list doesn't necessarily need to be one composed of friends (such as an internal mailing list in a corporation), installing majordomo, or any list management software, still helps to manage a private list. -- James C. Armstrong, Jr. | It's time to taste what you most fear james@sagarmatha.com (home) | Right Guard will not help you here. | Brace yourself, my dear! | It's a holiday in Cambodia! From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 16:16:37 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA01667 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:56:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA29263 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:34:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from colossus.arl.mil (colossus.arl.mil [131.218.204.98]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id CAA00279 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 02:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [206.181.220.82] by colossus.arl.mil with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Sat, 7 Dec 1996 05:10:17 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 05:11:24 -0500 To: connect@ecentral.com From: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio) Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 00:20 12/7/96, Cindy Stanley sent everyone: >Ahhhh, I see. I erroneously thought that *all* mailing lists were public, or at >least semi-public (meaning all subscribers had to approved and couldn't auto >subscribe). Nope. This is certainly an arguable point (though we'll never know), but there are probably more "private" lists out there than public ones -- though not all of those "lists" would fall into the MLM category (in fact, most would not, I'd guess). For all intents and purposes, the "class lists" that many schools set up nowadays at the start of each semester are private lists; there are certainly many more examples. >(insert Cindy musing a little here...Would it really be worth it to install MajorD >just to have a private list with your friends? Hmmm...) (No;-) >> appeared on PAML, I was running the list on a freeware Mac version of >> Majordomo called "Macjordomo" , >> which has a 1000-subscriber-per-list limit.* The list grew so quickly ::snip:: > >it...but I digress.) I have a Mac also. A PowerMac 7200/90 to be exact. 16 mgs >of RAM or 32 mgs if you count RamDoubler, and a 500 mg harddrive. I've heard of >the Mac version of MajorD but I don't know if my computer would be powerful enough >to run the list from here. Yes, it is certainly powerful enough. It's more powerful than the Mac I was using to host HumourNet. >Also, it couldn't be run from an unlimited ISP account, could it? Sure -- why not? >Wouldn't I need to get my own domain something-or-other Domain name? No, not necessary, unless you want a cutesie domain for the server and your list mail. (e.g., "homeschooling@CindyNet.org" or whatever floats your boat.) >and be hooked up to the Net 24 hours a day? Only if your list requires 24hr servicing for server requests and list mail. If not, then the mail will simply queue until you reconnect; just like your "regular" mailer, Macj (or whatever server you opt to use locally) will connect and process the waiting mail. When it's done, you can disconnect, and future messages will queue until the next time you connect. The only real "extra" requirement is a separate address (mailbox) for server requests. Typically, this is majordomo@domain.name, but you can call it anything you like: Talk-To-My-Server-Baby@domain.name would work just as well. >How did you know the subscriber limit with this software you had, Vince? I RTFM. ;-) >Is this >info in one of the MajorD FAQs, READ MEs or list-owner documentation and I just >missed it? Uh-oh! I think ... >I'm running version 1.93. ... I lost you. You are running *Majordomo*, which is not the same thing as running MACjordomo (my emphasis on "Mac"). They are two different programs, with similar (though not identical) server commands. Their limitations are as different as, say, Eudora and Claris Emailer. They're not the same beast. They're not distributed by the same organizations. The organizations aren't even in the same state. Not even in the same time zo You get the picture, I'm sure. >I'd love to get the list info out to more >homeschoolers, but, if there's a limit to the # of subscribers, that's definately a >consideration I need to keep in mind. As I said, there's another version that handles larger numbers of subscribers -- probably more than you'll have to deal with. And, like other lists, there are ways around subscriber limitations; the most popular method that I know of is to set up several smaller lists, and make each list's posting address an entry in an "umbrella list." That way, a post to the umbrella list is distributed to each of the sub-lists, which causes the message to be distributed to each list. Managing subscriptions can get tricky, especially if you don't want to do it yourself and you don't have a particularly 'Net-savvy subscribership. But that's another topic entirely. - Vince S. wavelet@colossus.arl.mil Every five seconds, somewhere in the world, a woman is having a baby. Our job is to find that woman, and stop her. From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 17:52:54 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA10875 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:38:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom16.netcom.com (netcom16.netcom.com [192.100.81.129]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA10864 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:38:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom16.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id SAA28787; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:38:02 -0700 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:38:02 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom16 To: List Managers List Subject: Bogus sub attempts Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This just blew through a billion or so Netcom lists. FYI. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / ++ Please excuse delay/terseness -- Typical Mail Load is >300/day. ++ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:34:28 -0800 (PST) From: Majordomo@majordomo.netcom.com To: this-is-true-approval@majordomo.netcom.com Subject: APPROVE this-is-true -- John Anonymous MacDonald requests that you approve the following: subscribe this-is-true torreal@msn.com From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 20:08:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA19072 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.hcl.com (mhoutside.hcl.com [205.211.178.111]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA19046 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:01:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from hclmail.hcl.com (hclmail.hcl.com [198.231.99.250]) by mailhub.hcl.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA15224 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:01:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from 199.71.120.12 by hclmail.hcl.com(Warp-9/NT) id 17316454.0; Sun, 08 Dec 96 04:01:14 GMT Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:01:14 -0500 () From: Rudy Amid To: David Rodbard cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: How to prevent mail-loops with majordomo? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-X-Sender: rudy@hclmail.hcl.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk With majordomo I think it's possible to do this, but you have to know how to modify the wrapper to be able to detect mail loops by searching the body of the text, From: header, etc. This can be easily with procmail. A lot of opeople are using Smartlist because of this. It would be nice if there are a lot of alternatives. --- Rudy Amid (rudy@hcl.com), Systems "I'm IT!" Administrator NB: IMHO! >/` Hummingbird Communications, Ltd. 1 Sparks Ave. Toronto, Ont. __ " Canada. M2H 2W1. 416-496-2200 Fax 496-2207 [URL] http://www.hcl.com | PGP key fingerprint is on my home page at http://www.warped.com/~radix \_) On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, David Rodbard wrote: > I would very much appreciate advice re: how to protect against mail-loops when > using majordomo in the "reply to list" mode? (A number of our list owners and > subscribers prefer the "Reply to List" option to the "Reply to Sender Only" > option). > Is there a way to automatically detect and abort a mail-loop in the absence of > list-owner or operator intervention (e.g. at night and on weekends)? > Thanks. > From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 7 23:52:51 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA02019 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:44:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.ecentral.com ([204.227.4.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id XAA02010 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:43:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from 204.227.4.33 (ppp13.ecentral.com [204.227.4.33]) by www.ecentral.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA27361; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:42:42 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32AA7277.4D57@ecentral.com> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 00:47:03 -0700 From: Cindy Stanley Reply-To: connect@ecentral.com Organization: Unschooling List X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vince Sabio CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Cindy Stanley, in her never-ending search for answers, asked: > >How did you know the subscriber limit with this software you had, Vince? Vince Sabio mysteriously answered: > I RTFM. ;-) Excuse me? (I Read the FAQ Manual perhaps?) No...that winky indicates that this is definately *not* a mundane answer.... > >I'm running version 1.93. > > ... I lost you. You are running *Majordomo*, which is not the same thing as > running MACjordomo (my emphasis on "Mac"). Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to be obscure here. I know you were talking about 2 entirely different programs...I was just asking if there was a way to find out the maximum number of subscribers Majordomo 1.93 can handle. Or, is there a limit? > As I said, there's another version that handles larger numbers of subscribers -- > probably more than you'll have to deal with. Are you referring to Majordomo 1.94? As to the number of potential future subscribers, it's hard to predict. Homeschooling is growing at the rate of 200% plus, nationwide. Right now I am getting anywhere from 3-15 new subscribers every day vs. about 1-2 unsubscribe requests. We're currently listed on about 12 web pages (that I know of). > And, like other lists, there are > ways around subscriber limitations; the most popular method that I know of is > to set up several smaller lists, and make each list's posting address an entry > in an "umbrella list." That way, a post to the umbrella list is distributed to > each of the sub-lists, which causes the message to be distributed to each list. > Managing subscriptions can get tricky, especially if you don't want to do it > yourself and you don't have a particularly 'Net-savvy subscribership. But that's > another topic entirely. Oh boy. Thanks Vince, but, I think I'll stick with just trying to figure out just one list at at time. :-P And my subscribership is about 50% New-to-the-Net/Unsavvy types... Cindy UL Mom connect@ecentral.com "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path, and leave a trail." -Ralph Waldo Emerson From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 00:07:43 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA02665 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from colossus.arl.mil (colossus.arl.mil [131.218.204.98]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id XAA02649 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:56:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [206.181.220.82] by colossus.arl.mil with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:00:52 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:02:27 -0500 To: connect@ecentral.com From: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio) Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 00:47 12/8/96, Cindy Stanley sent everyone: >> >How did you know the subscriber limit with this software you had, Vince? > >Vince Sabio mysteriously answered: > >> I RTFM. ;-) > >Excuse me? (I Read the FAQ Manual perhaps?) No...that winky indicates that >definately *not* a mundane answer.... "I Read The Manual." The "F" is left up to one's imagination. ;-) >> >I'm running version 1.93. >> >> ... I lost you. You are running *Majordomo*, which is not the same thing as >> running MACjordomo (my emphasis on "Mac"). > >Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to be obscure here. I know you were talking about 2 >different programs...I was just asking if there was a way to find out the >of subscribers Majordomo 1.93 can handle. Or, is there a limit? Beats me -- Idunno *squat* about MD. (Well, maybe *squat*, but that's about it.) Plus, it's probably a topic for the MD list. >> As I said, there's another version that handles larger numbers of subscribers [...] >> probably more than you'll have to deal with. > >Are you referring to Majordomo 1.94? No, I'm not discussing MD at all. I'm talking about *MAC*jordomo here. I have no idea what may be the limitations of the "real" MD, though I *do* know that it's a pretty big number (b/c I know that there are some pretty big MD-based lists out there). Hope this has reduced the confusion. (?) - Vince S. wavelet@colossus.arl.mil -- For info on HumourNet--the Internet's moderated mailing list for humor-- send the command INFO HUMORNET (only one U) to listproc@csf.colorado.edu -- Boycott Internet Spam! From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 00:22:40 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id AAA03571 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:18:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from iquest.net (iquest4.iquest.net [206.53.230.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id AAA03564 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by iquest.net (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vWeQr-003iNPC; Sun, 8 Dec 96 03:17 EST Received: (from alt@localhost) by aen.aen.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12081; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:42:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:42:12 -0500 (EST) From: Al Thompson To: Will Mayall cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <199612072116.NAA20823@ico.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Will Mayall wrote: > It seems that that the bottom line (at least for discussion lists) is how > fast is the time between receipt of the message by the mailing list and > receipt of the message by the subscribers of the list. Since the time to This is an unrealistic measurement for many of us. Consider that there are many factors which for a lot of us, are beyond the control of our hardware or software. For instance, I would guess that many people run MLMs on their personal machine, which is connected to an ISP either via PPP/SLIP or uucp. Thus, 'time-to-receipt' can be affected by polling cycles, phone line quality, and (certainly not least) potential backlogs at the ISP (which are VERY common here). Our ISP regularly has mail backlogs up to several HOURS. If our only criteria is 'how long is it until the recipient gets the message,' then the performance of the MLM software becomes nearly irrelevent in many (most?) cases. For instance, if I have a 2-hour UUCP polling schedule, then, by your criteria, all MLM software would have the same performance rating, since no recipient would get his mail sooner than 2 hours. Likewise, if my ISP's sendmail is simply queuing mail due to system load, then it doesn't matter if my MLM processes 500K messages/minute or 1 message/minute. I think that rating MLMs by simply 'how fast can they process a message to x addresses' is the best measurement of this sort when comparing different programs. Another figure that would come in handy is how much system resource does it take to do it, since if the MLM increases the system load so much as to bog down everything else, then it could certainly affect a lot of other things. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 03:07:50 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id CAA10851 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:55:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id CAA10826 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:54:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612081054.CAA10826@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <1.05A577B6@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:54:25 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4019; Sun, 08 Dec 96 11:48:00 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 4423; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:47:59 +0100 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:15:19 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: Will Mayall , Al Thompson cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:42:12 -0500 (EST) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This all depends on what you're trying to measure. I think what Paul and most MLM administrators want to measure is what the software is capable of doing in terms of system and end-user performance. This is clearly not going to be possible if the software runs on a machine that is powered off 20h a day and connects at 28.8k the rest of the time. The bottleneck will be the network, or else something is very wrong. If on the other hand you know you have to run your MLM with 4h of daily uptime and 28.8k, you may then be interested in knowing which software will work best in that situation. The ratings for both tests may not necessarily be the same. To effectively measure the performance of a MLM/MTA package, you need to give it 24h uptime (so that you can make tests over a full 24h cycle and not end up measuring burst patterns), and a permanent Internet connection. Bandwidth should be considered a hardware attribute, ie a test parameter. A faster box and a faster connection will both tend to increase performance, although this may not always be the case. In that scenario, round-trip time IS the main user satisfaction metric, at least for discussion lists. To take a concrete example, I host a rather large list for professional translators. Sometimes they need help for a specialized term and ask for help on the list. Translators, like journalists, are notorious for working on tight deadlines, so the answer is only useful if it arrives within a few hours. This in itself would be possible even with a slowish product, however in most cases the answer is not just someone who knows typing in the proper translation. We are talking about professional translators here, the issue is usually "What is the most appropriate translation that properly renders the context, tone, etc?" and not "What the #$%#$%# does that mean?" So, the "correct" answer is usually the result of a discussion. Several possible translations are proposed and people comment on them, in the end one is picked. The whole process must take place within a few hours. A lot of discussion lists actually work this way, minus the formal deadline. Or, to put it another way, while a list with a turnaround time of 4-5h is useful, a list with a turnaround time of 2 min is MUCH more useful and can be used to solve more problems (and save more time). Eric From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 06:22:50 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA17234 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 06:14:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id GAA17227 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 06:14:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-961106) id GAA23534; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 06:13:50 -0800 Received: from zoom.realtime.net(205.238.128.40) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma023526; Sun Dec 8 06:12:52 1996 Received: from [204.181.160.90] (maria-7j.ip.realtime.net [204.181.160.90]) by zoom.bga.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21034 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:06:32 -0600 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:06:32 -0600 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: jsnyder@bga.com (John R. Snyder) Subject: repeat mail Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Here's a message from a friend of mine in the UK who's experiencing a problem with two lists he and I are on. (I'm not the listowner of these lists, but I'm interested in helping him and also learning what's behind this problem in case it ever happens on my AngFran-L list.) Apparently he is the only person experiencing this problem - at least no one else has reported it. >On Saturday morning I went to check my email; for some reason I have got >4,328 pieces of email waiting to be read!!!!!!!!! > >On checking who they are from and what they are all about I find that they >are all [from two lists he and I belong to]. > >They represent all the email I have received from both lists since last >July!!!!!!!! > >HELP!!!!!!! > >I have not asked for this to happen to me. Can someone out there help me. >My service provider seems to think the best way is to close accounts and >open a new one. This is a big BIND, it costs money and I don't want to have >to do this. Thanks for your suggestions. John Snyder AngFran-L Round Rock, TX jsnyder@pobox.com From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 07:23:00 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA18735 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:21:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id HAA18728 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:20:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from vicric@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.8.2/8.7/PanixU1.3) id KAA24114 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:20:33 -0500 (EST) From: Vicki Richman Message-Id: <199612081520.KAA24114@panix2.panix.com> Subject: Re: Bogus sub attempts To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:20:32 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Randy Cassingham" at Dec 7, 96 06:38:02 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Randy Cassingham has written: > This just blew through a billion or so Netcom lists. FYI. I'm sad to report that those phony sub requests are an everyday occurrence on Netcom. I managed eleven Majordomo lists on Netcom. (Yes, I now know that was a mistake.) Almost every day I received bogus requests to all eleven lists. It was clear that every list on Netcom got them, as there was nothing special about my eleven. Nine of my lists needed approval, so they were no problem. I had to unsubscribe the prankster from the other two lists whenever the request came from the same address as the intended subscription. (Likely those were forgeries. I regretted that Majordomo ate the orginal requests, as it would have been useful for a human to examine the headers.) My lists are still active on Netcom, although I've removed all the names. Netcom has recently upgraded to Majordomo 1.9x. The requests still come in, although Netcom has installed a script that recognizes the phonies and refuses to subscribe them. I still don't understand why. My guess is that it's a college prank to harass professors. Vicki From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 09:07:46 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA22876 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from polaris.smcs.com (polaris.smcs.com [206.88.72.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA22869 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:02:51 -0800 (PST) From: Donald Loughlin To: jsnyder@bga.com Subject: repeat mail Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com X-Mailer: ScoMail 3.0.Bd MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:52:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9612081152.aa08513@polaris.smcs.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk on: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:06:32 -0600 John R. Snyder wrote > >>On Saturday morning I went to check my email; for some reason I have got >>4,328 pieces of email waiting to be read!!!!!!!!! >> >>On checking who they are from and what they are all about I find that they >>are all [from two lists he and I belong to]. >> >>They represent all the email I have received from both lists since last >>July!!!!!!!! Depending on the mail viewer being used, you may not be fully deleting read mail. ie: in SCO Mail, putting mail in the "trash" only marks it for deletion. At some point you must "empty the trash". If the machine is rebooted before permentaly discarding the old messages, they will all reappear. I could imagine a simular problem at your ISP. This is only one posibility, Happy Hunting. Don -------------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Loughlin donl@smcs.com SSSS M M CCCC SSSS Super Micro Computer Systems S MM MM C S 6 Essex Drive SSSS M M M C SSSS Hauppauge NY 11788 S M M C S +1-516-582-3404 FAX +1-516-234-6943 SSSS M M CCCC SSSS -------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 09:52:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA24584 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:41:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ico.com (psycho.ico.net [207.111.192.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id JAA24574 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:41:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.94.135.204] (host-3.fogcity.com [204.94.135.204]) by ico.com (8.8.2/8.8.2/103196) with SMTP id JAA17166; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:40:26 -0800 Message-Id: <199612081740.JAA17166@ico.com> Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Date: Sun, 8 Dec 96 09:40:25 -0800 x-sender: fcity001@mail.ico.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Will Mayall To: "Al Thompson" cc: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> It seems that the bottom line (at least for discussion lists) is how >> fast is the time between receipt of the message by the mailing list and >> receipt of the message by the subscribers of the list. > >This is an unrealistic measurement for many of us. Consider that there >are many factors which for a lot of us, are beyond the control of our >hardware or software. Unrealistic in the sense that it may be difficult to control and therefore measure, but not necessarily unimportant since this would seem to be the measure of the primary role of the MLM/MTA. Only real world examples of lists can give a realistic sense of performance. >For instance, I would guess that many people run MLMs on their personal >machine, which is connected to an ISP either via PPP/SLIP or uucp. Thus, >'time-to-receipt' can be affected by polling cycles, phone line quality, >and (certainly not least) potential backlogs at the ISP (which are VERY >common here). Our ISP regularly has mail backlogs up to several HOURS. Understood, this was just the type of set of variables I was trying to point out are out of the direct control of MLM/MTA, although I was thinking more about full-time high speed reliable connections. >If our only criteria is 'how long is it until the recipient gets the >message,' then the performance of the MLM software becomes nearly >irrelevent in many (most?) cases. Agreed. This was the main point I was trying to make: that, although perhaps interesting from a technical point of view, the time to process a message at the MLM probably makes little difference to the time needed to get the message to the subscriber. Since mailing lists primarily exist for the benefit of the subscribers, this would seem to be a benchmark that has relatively little value. Perhaps I should point out that our product is a combined MLM/MTA that does require a full-time connection. This obviously affects my point of view. Will __________________________________________________________________________ Will Mayall http://www.fogcity.com President, Fog City Software From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 10:08:14 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA26462 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA26455 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:02:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id KAA01591; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:01:48 -0800 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:01:47 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612081054.CAA10826@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Eric Thomas wrote: > This all depends on what you're trying to measure. I think what Paul and > most MLM administrators want to measure is what the software is capable > of doing in terms of system and end-user performance. This is clearly not > going to be possible if the software runs on a machine that is powered > off 20h a day and connects at 28.8k the rest of the time. The bottleneck > will be the network, or else something is very wrong. If on the other > hand you know you have to run your MLM with 4h of daily uptime and 28.8k, Is it actually possible to run mailing lists via a machine which is powered of every day? I am certain to be asking a pretty naive question here, but so be it. I have run nearly a dozen mailing lists via Majordomo software which is mounted at Netcom, a national ISP. For this reason, I've been shielded from much of the underlying technical issues associated with running it from your own machines. I'm now interested to do so with top quality performance. What is happening to mail in transit if the machine with the MLM software is powered down.... huge amounts of mail just que up at some ISP?? Then normally flow on through when you power on again? Does all MLM software, Listserv, Listproc, and others work in this environment? I also wonder, if anyone would guess, how many people run mailing lists off a 28.8 line which is up part of the time, and off most of the time on a little 486 or Pentium? It may be naive again, but I haven't been aware of that as extant or prevalent. James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 10:22:51 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA27525 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:15:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA27488 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:15:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id KAA02984; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:14:39 -0800 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:14:39 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Al Thompson wrote: > > For instance, I would guess that many people run MLMs on their personal > machine, which is connected to an ISP either via PPP/SLIP or uucp. Thus, > 'time-to-receipt' can be affected by polling cycles, phone line quality, > and (certainly not least) potential backlogs at the ISP (which are VERY > common here). Our ISP regularly has mail backlogs up to several HOURS. Exactly. I've run a number of mailing lists on Netcom, a national US ISP for several years. Mail has been delayed frequently for many hours, and sometimes for days! Their tech support has been *almost* completely unresponsive. I have acquired, through another ISP, a 56K frame relay line for starters, through which I would like to pass MLM mail from a dedicated machine. But I now find myself wondering about the extent to which delivery will *still* be affected by *this* ISP's role. Should I expect to see mail waiting according to their batching and sending cycles, or not? In other words, how can one arrange connections to the Net so as to get the fastest possible delivery speeds. I appreciate that the MLM software plays a role, but now I'm talking about intervening factors like ISP's, the topology of networks, etc. Come to think of it.... who has the fastest delivery system, excluding MLM software factors, and why? ...... and thank you, James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 11:08:00 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA00302 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:57:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom8.netcom.com (netcom8.netcom.com [192.100.81.117]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA00295 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:57:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom8.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id LAA10316; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:56:36 -0700 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:56:35 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom8 To: List Managers List Subject: Re: Bogus sub attempts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Vicki Richman wrote: > > This just blew through a billion or so Netcom lists. FYI. > > I'm sad to report that those phony sub requests are an everyday > occurrence on Netcom. Not true. Several times a week, sure, and sometimes several times a day. But not EVERY day. :-| > It was clear that every list on Netcom got them, as there was nothing > special about my eleven. Right. The way I can tell so easily is I have an inactive list; so when I see a sub come in on both my inactive and my active, in less than three seconds, I can get a clue as to what's going on. > (Likely those were forgeries. I regretted that Majordomo ate the orginal > requests, as it would have been useful for a human to examine the > headers.) I think they're likely all forgeries, yes. And I agree that it would be nice if MD would return ALL headers so we can do some tracing. OTOH, I understand that 1.94 will have/has a verification routine which should put an end to this crap. > My lists are still active on Netcom, although I've removed all the > names. Netcom has recently upgraded to Majordomo 1.9x. The requests > still come in, although Netcom has installed a script that recognizes > the phonies and refuses to subscribe them. 1.93, with supposed plans to bump to 1.94 when the pending patch is released. Their script isn't as elegant as you imply; it allows them to subscribe, so the list manager is bothered with the notification, but then they go and silently remove the address from all the lists, WITHOUT bothering to mention that to the list manager. Nor have they EVER officially told the list managers they are doing this, even though it's apparent to those who have the ability to pay attention. > I still don't understand why. My guess is that it's a college prank to > harass professors. Some of it is terrorism; the WSJ had an article about it. The "bombers" published a "manifesto" saying why they had picked various targets. Many instances were to punish people for doing things they didn't like. One of the victims I remember was Sandy Gookin, who had the audacity to write a book called "Parenting for Dummies". They thought that was stupid, so they punished her by subscribing her to thousands of high-volume lists; she had to abandon her address, and start a new account. So much for the "free flow of information" that is "central to the freedom of the Internet", eh? / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / ++ Please excuse delay/terseness -- Typical Mail Load is >300/day. ++ From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 11:22:51 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA01526 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:20:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.102.244.42] (pb520.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA01519; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:20:28 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:21:24 -0800 To: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio), connect@ecentral.com From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:02 AM -0500 12/8/96, Vince Sabio wrote:>No, I'm not discussing MD at all. I'm talking about *MAC*jordomo here. >I have no idea what may be the limitations of the "real" MD, though I >*do* know that it's a pretty big number (b/c I know that there are some >pretty big MD-based lists out there). There are no fixed limits in Majordomo. >Hope this has reduced the confusion. (?) No, whoever named the completely-unrelated Mac shareware product "Macjordomo" has seemingly guaranteed confusion on this topic for years to come... -Brent ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041 ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Internet Tutorials from the Experts! From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 11:37:50 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA01800 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA01793 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA22046; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:32:05 GMT Message-Id: <199612081132.LAA22046@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: James Cook Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:29:50 +7 Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > But I now find myself wondering about the extent to which delivery will > *still* be affected by *this* ISP's role. Should I expect to see mail > waiting according to their batching and sending cycles, or not? > > In other words, how can one arrange connections to the Net so as to get > the fastest possible delivery speeds. I appreciate that the MLM software > plays a role, but now I'm talking about intervening factors like ISP's, > the topology of networks, etc. A number of MLMs forward all their mail to another computer running sendmail. Then, it is that computer's responsibility to send all your mail. If you run this sort of MLM, then you will be dependent on the machine your are using for this, which will most likely be your ISP's mail server. Put yourself at the tail end of your lists, so that you can measure delivery time, it can vary widely from provider to provider. The smaller ISPs, who are run by a few Unix gurus, tend to have well maintained boxes. Pacbell's mail server, on the other hand, is often maxed out to the point where it refuses incoming SMTP connections. Many of the MLMs being discussed here, however, deliver mail themselves, usually because they are running sendmail (or a functional replacement) on Unix. In such a case, the backbone of your ISP becomes quite important. My experience with ISPs has been very mixed. MCI worked well for us when we were located in Maryland, but we found that their East Coast to West Coast gateways have major problems, with 30%-50% packet losses during business hours. Thus, mail delivered on the same coast went through very quickly, but mail going to the opposite coast had major problems. We had better results with UUNet. The average transfer time is, on average, slower than with MCI, but we experience many fewer outages, so a better average delivery time. Now that we moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, we're using Pacific Bell as our provider. We've had a terrible experience with them, with frequent outages (several per week). We've found that while PacBell's backbone is quite good (reaching other sites on PacBell's network), their gateways to other providers are terrible, and often down. It's very common for us to get 30% packet loss pinging Yahoo (just 30 miles away, and only a few hops), with the packet loss occuring at PacBell's Mae West connection (which is a bad place for it to happen, since Mae West is so vital). Our most favorable experience has been with the large, independent ISPs. They are not big enough to have their own national backbone, so they have to rely on many redundant connections to other ISPs. Best Internet services (also know as "The Little Garden"), an ISP in the San Francisco Bay Area, has about a dozen connections to other ISPs. Be sure, however, that the ISP has set up their routing so that they use all their connections all the time, for all their machines. I've seen ISPs allocate batches of their machines to one T1, and another batch to the other T1. While this is a brute force way of distributing load, it address of problem of outages. In my experience, the breakdown point is usually where ISPs meet. The major ISPs (MCI, PacBell) have their own national Networks, and don't seem to do as good a good job maintaining their interconnect points. MCI's Washington gateway to Mae East, for instance, this summer had 80% packet losses for 2 months before they fixed it. A general recomendation - choose an ISP who provides a major online service. Many of these online services have the clout to require their ISPs to sign quality-of-line quarantees, and put in additional redundancy systems, so these are a good choice for your connection. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 11:45:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA01900 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.102.244.42] (pb520.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA01893; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:35:30 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199612081054.CAA10826@miles.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:36:22 -0800 To: James Cook From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:01 AM -0800 12/8/96, James Cook wrote: >On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Eric Thomas wrote: > >> This all depends on what you're trying to measure. I think what Paul and >> most MLM administrators want to measure is what the software is capable >> of doing in terms of system and end-user performance. This is clearly not >> going to be possible if the software runs on a machine that is powered >> off 20h a day and connects at 28.8k the rest of the time. The bottleneck >> will be the network, or else something is very wrong. If on the other >> hand you know you have to run your MLM with 4h of daily uptime and 28.8k, > > >Is it actually possible to run mailing lists via a machine which is >powered of every day? Yes. Been there, done that. >I am certain to be asking a pretty naive question here, but so be it. I >have run nearly a dozen mailing lists via Majordomo software which is >mounted at Netcom, a national ISP. For this reason, I've been shielded >from much of the underlying technical issues associated with running it >from your own machines. I'm now interested to do so with top quality >performance. You're not going to get top performance (which I define as taking minimal time to get a message from its poster to (most of) its recipients) with a part-time connection; the two are mutually exclusive. >What is happening to mail in transit if the machine with the MLM software >is powered down.... huge amounts of mail just que up at some ISP?? Then >normally flow on through when you power on again? Sort of; depends on the specifics of your connection. You need an ISP who is prepared to receive and hold all your incoming mail for you, then has a way to send it to you promptly and reliably when you bring your connection up. Given the way mailers like Sendmail and so forth work, this is harder than it sounds; a few of the larger/better ISPs have effective solutions for this, most don't. >Does all MLM software, Listserv, Listproc, and others work in this >environment? Can't speak for the others, but Majordomo does. You'll get some massive load-average spikes on the machine when you receive your mail batches, since all the accumulated requests will be coming in at once rather than trickling in over time, but you can cope with that with careful configuration of Majordomo and your mailer. >I also wonder, if anyone would guess, how many people run mailing lists >off a 28.8 line which is up part of the time, and off most of the time on >a little 486 or Pentium? It may be naive again, but I haven't been aware >of that as extant or prevalent. All the GreatCircle.COM lists are handled by a 66 MHz 486 running BSDI 1.1 (ancient, I know) that has a full-time 56 kb/s link to the Internet. The CPU power isn't an issue; bandwidth is the big issue. Whether you can handle your lists on an intermittent 28.8 link depends on how big the lists are and how much traffic they generate. One trick, though, is to avoid doing outgoing delivery yourself. If you look carefully at the "Received:" headers of this or any other message from a GreatCircle.COM list, you'll see that it went from here to UUNET (our ISP), even for those of you who aren't UUNET customers. This is because, instead of sending N copies of each posting to 1 recipient each, we send 1 copy of the posting with N recipients to UUNET. UUNET, who is *MUCH* better connected than we are bandwidth-wise, then sends out the N different copies to 1 recipient each. This is all accomplished by how we have our copy of Sendmail configured; there's nothing that we have to do with Majordomo, or that UUNET has to do (other than agree to receive our mail), in order to set this up. -Brent ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041 ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Internet Tutorials from the Experts! From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 11:52:56 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA02291 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:43:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.102.244.42] (pb520.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA02283; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:43:20 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:44:16 -0800 To: James Cook From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:14 AM -0800 12/8/96, James Cook wrote: >In other words, how can one arrange connections to the Net so as to get >the fastest possible delivery speeds. I appreciate that the MLM software >plays a role, but now I'm talking about intervening factors like ISP's, >the topology of networks, etc. Well, basicly, you need to accomplish 3 things: 1) Get the incoming messages to your site as fast as possible 2) Process them as fast as possible 3) Get them back out to the subscribers as fast as possible To accomplish #1 and #3, you need "fat pipes" (high-bandwidth connections; T-1 or T-3 or better) connected to as many different ISPs as possible, so that the incoming/outgoing mail has minimal network delays. To accomplish #2 and #3, you need fast systems at your site. In my experience, however, #3 is almost always the hard problem... -Brent ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041 ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Internet Tutorials from the Experts! From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 12:07:57 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA03100 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:01:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA03066 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:00:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3081 invoked by uid 305); 8 Dec 1996 20:00:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19961208200006.3079.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: Will Mayall cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: <199612081740.JAA17166@ico.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3057.850075201.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 15:00:02 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk if by many or most the assumption was that many or most lists are small and run on machines at home then the comment has some relevance but your quote left out the 2-hour delay which nearly inverts the original implication. yes, if your delivery latency is on the order of hours rather than seconds mlm performance is likely to be of less importance. while i don't argue that real-world examples are vital it seems that you're talking about measuring the capacity of the link not the capability of the mta. e.g. if i use something like letterip on 28kbps ppp link for a list serving people in the balkans should i make a comparison with lyris serving a list of people on my fddi ring? i would suggest that the only effect the mlm should have on time to delivery is its cost. if you have to give up your t3 for 28kbps because of the price of the mlm then you would likely be better off buying cheaper software so you could get better hardware. btw, the subject line is ``Large Mailing Lists''. alt said: ``If our only criteria is 'how long is it until the recipient gets the message,' then the performance of the MLM software becomes nearly irrelevent in many (most?) cases. For instance, if I have a 2-hour UUCP polling schedule, then, by your criteria, all MLM software would have the same performance rating...'' -------- In reply to: >If our only criteria is 'how long is it until the recipient gets the >message,' then the performance of the MLM software becomes nearly >irrelevent in many (most?) cases. Agreed. This was the main point I was trying to make: that, although perhaps interesting from a technical point of view, the time to process a message at the MLM probably makes little difference to the time needed to get the message to the subscriber. Since mailing lists primarily exist for the benefit of the subscribers, this would seem to be a benchmark that has relatively little value. --------------------- -- paul pjg@acsu.Buffalo.EDU |public keys at: pjg@ubvm | http://urth.acsu.Buffalo.EDU/~pjg/key.html if the above contains opinions they are mine unless marked otherwise. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 12:37:46 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA04065 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:25:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA04041 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:25:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3604 invoked by uid 305); 8 Dec 1996 20:24:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19961208202429.3603.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: James Cook cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3592.850076666.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 15:24:27 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk if you're delivering your own mail via smtp it has nothing to do with your provider's mail schedule*. smtp is a point-to-point protocol not a store-and-forward protocol like uucp. the faster your link+ the better you can do but i don't think anyone is hosting a list that would require a t3 connection (yet). total list delivery latency is a function of degree of parallelism in smtp connections assuming adequate outbound bandwidth and that most deliveries are made using smtp. i think most common large system mta's (with the notable exception of sendmail) offer a very high degree of parallelism. i would think that working at the ``thread'' level rather than the ``process'' level (to use unix terms) is necessary for ultra-high performance with limited hardware. of course i don't know much about mta's that are not used in the unix environment. * well actually if you're provider doesn't have sufficient bandwidth and the do mailing list services and they do queue runs at specific times then there may be times when the short term load on the connection is very high. if you send mail at the same time you could see network congestion. + actually it's your available bandwidth to a nap which is a function of your isp's available outbound bandwidth. -------- In reply to: ... Should I expect to see mail waiting according to their batching and sending cycles, or not? In other words, how can one arrange connections to the Net so as to get the fastest possible delivery speeds... Come to think of it.... who has the fastest delivery system, excluding MLM software factors, and why? --------------------- -- paul pjg@acsu.Buffalo.EDU |public keys at: pjg@ubvm | http://urth.acsu.Buffalo.EDU/~pjg/key.html if the above contains opinions they are mine unless marked otherwise. From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 12:52:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA05221 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA05179 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:44:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id MAA21155; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:44:24 -0800 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:44:23 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Brent Chapman wrote: > One trick, though, is to avoid doing outgoing delivery yourself. If you > look carefully at the "Received:" headers of this or any other message from > a GreatCircle.COM list, you'll see that it went from here to UUNET (our > ISP), even for those of you who aren't UUNET customers. This is because, > instead of sending N copies of each posting to 1 recipient each, we send 1 > copy of the posting with N recipients to UUNET. UUNET, who is *MUCH* > better connected than we are bandwidth-wise, then sends out the N different > copies to 1 recipient each. This is all accomplished by how we have our > copy of Sendmail configured; there's nothing that we have to do with > Majordomo, or that UUNET has to do (other than agree to receive our mail), > in order to set this up. Very shrewd..... from my level of exerience.... 1. What configuration of Sendmail obtains the foregoing result? 2. Is UUNET doing anything special which facilitates this effect? Or do some ISP's handle anything differently so that this may not work? How would someone external to such companies know the difference? 3. Is this kind of "management" of the delivery transport side of the equation a key part of Lsoft's products or other "high end" MLM's? I'm thinking of Lost's LSMTP as I write this. I note than some users of Lsoft Listserv hanve't opted for that, and wonder why...whether it is important? Thank you. James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 13:38:03 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA09326 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 13:34:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.102.244.42] (pb520.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA09299; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 13:34:10 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: brent@miles.greatcircle.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 13:35:03 -0800 To: James Cook From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM -0800 12/8/96, James Cook wrote: >On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Brent Chapman wrote: > >> One trick, though, is to avoid doing outgoing delivery yourself. If you >> look carefully at the "Received:" headers of this or any other message from >> a GreatCircle.COM list, you'll see that it went from here to UUNET (our >> ISP), even for those of you who aren't UUNET customers. This is because, >> instead of sending N copies of each posting to 1 recipient each, we send 1 >> copy of the posting with N recipients to UUNET. UUNET, who is *MUCH* >> better connected than we are bandwidth-wise, then sends out the N different >> copies to 1 recipient each. This is all accomplished by how we have our >> copy of Sendmail configured; there's nothing that we have to do with >> Majordomo, or that UUNET has to do (other than agree to receive our mail), >> in order to set this up. > > > >Very shrewd..... from my level of exerience.... > >1. What configuration of Sendmail obtains the foregoing result? Configure your sendmail.cf file to use a "relay" host (at your ISP) for all outgoing mail, rather than attempting to deliver it directly to the destination. This is a fairly standard configuration option that's available in most sendmail.cf files. Here at GreatCircle.COM, we actually run two different copies of Sendmail with separate sendmail.cf files and separate queue directories. The normal /usr/lib/sendmail is configured to attempt direct delivery; this is used for most non-list-related systems. The secondary /usr/lib/sendmail-lists is configured as we've been discussing here, to relay all outgoing mail to our ISP (UUNET); this is the binary we use for list-related mail (i.e., it's the program we list for outgoing mail in the various Majordomo config files). >2. Is UUNET doing anything special which facilitates this effect? Or do >some ISP's handle anything differently so that this may not work? How >would someone external to such companies know the difference? No, UUNET is doing nothing special. They need to be able to handle the load, but that's all. >3. Is this kind of "management" of the delivery transport side of the >equation a key part of Lsoft's products or other "high end" MLM's? >I'm thinking of Lost's LSMTP as I write this. I note than some users of >Lsoft Listserv hanve't opted for that, and wonder why...whether it is >important? I don't know; somebody more familiar with those packages will have to answer that. -Brent ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Brent Chapman | Great Circle Associates | 1057 West Dana Street Brent@GreatCircle.COM | http://www.greatcircle.com | Mountain View, CA 94041 ----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------ Internet Tutorials from the Experts! From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 8 15:08:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA17535 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:00:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA17503 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:00:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA02192 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 11:42:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from vicric@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.8.2/8.7/PanixU1.3) id OAA15251 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 14:41:51 -0500 (EST) From: Vicki Richman Message-Id: <199612081941.OAA15251@panix2.panix.com> Subject: Re: Bogus sub attempts To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 14:41:51 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Randy Cassingham" at Dec 8, 96 11:56:35 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Randy Cassingham has written: > Their script isn't as elegant as you imply; it allows them to subscribe, > so the list manager is bothered with the notification, but then they go > and silently remove the address from all the lists, WITHOUT bothering to > mention that to the list manager. Nor have they EVER officially told the > list managers they are doing this, even though it's apparent to those who > have the ability to pay attention. Thanks for clarifying. I'd get robot confirmations of subscriptions. I'd try to unsubscribe the victim, only to be informed that there is no such subscriber. That's how I inferred that Netcom intervened. As you say, Netcom never notified us. But Netcom's method does not protect the real victim. The main effect of the phony subscriptions is to flood the victim's mailbox with thousands of welcome messages. Netcom does not appear to prevent that by removing the name after the fact. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vicki Richman vicric@panix.com National Writers Union Harlem New York PGP 2.6 UAW Local 1981, AFL/CIO "The fare shall not be fowl." -Credo of the Vegetarian Umpires Association ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 03:08:20 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id CAA01815 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 02:55:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id CAA01732 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 02:54:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612091054.CAA01732@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.28DBE09D@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:54:13 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 7767; Mon, 09 Dec 96 11:47:49 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 2042; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:47:49 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:27:15 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: James Cook cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:44:23 -0800 (PST) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:44:23 -0800 (PST) James Cook said: >3. Is this kind of "management" of the delivery transport side of the >equation a key part of Lsoft's products or other "high end" MLM's? LISTSERV does not include a MTA (we do sell a MTA, LSMTP, but it is technically a separate product, even if you bought the two as a package and installed them together). When you set up LISTSERV, you indicate where outgoing mail should be sent. This could be to LSMTP, or it could be a local Linux box with sendmail, or a MTA run by your ISP, etc. Perhaps I should clarify what the process Brent described does and does not do: 1. It quickly FORWARDS the delivery chore to your ISP. This makes it a very convenient way to run a list over dial-up (presumably the ISP's machine has 24h uptime). 2. Your ISP bears the (resource/bandwidth) cost of actually delivering the mail. This means you had better check with them beforehand unless it is very little traffic, or they might just send you a bill. 3. It does not DELIVER anything. It may give the illusion of fast mail delivery because the messages leave your machine quickly, but they are just being moved around to the machine that will actually deliver them. I'd like to insist on #2. When we developed the shareware version of LISTSERV for Win95, all the beta sites were happily using their ISP's machine for mail delivery. Well, most of them had one list of 10 people with 5 postings a day, which is well within the amount of mail traffic that an ISP can expect an active/enthusiastic user to have. But some of them ran lists with nearly a thousand subscribers, and they were dumping it all on the ISP. In very rough figures, we were talking 50k daily deliveries offloaded to the ISP - for just ONE customer. A typical sendmail server has a capacity of 100-200k/day. The potential for overloading the server and impacting its other users was very real, and at $19.95/month it is highly unlikely that the ISP's reaction would be to buy more sendmail servers so that people can run more large lists. We were in fact concerned about getting sued, so we configured the trial copies to deliver all their mail through our machines (in a way that the user cannot override until a registered copy is bought - this way *we* bear the costs of the trial), and we also sold a cheap mail delivery service to go with the shareware version. >I'm thinking of Lost's LSMTP as I write this. LSMTP actually delivers all the mail you send it, unless instructed otherwise (you can set up special forwarding rules for certain domains, etc). You don't need LSMTP to offload your deliveries to a third party's server (LISTSERV can do that for you), and it would be false advertising to publish delivery figures that turned out to be for tossing the hot potato to a third server. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 03:38:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id DAA04821 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 03:35:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id DAA04782 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 03:35:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612091135.DAA04782@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <6.D8402E59@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:34:55 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 7844; Mon, 09 Dec 96 12:28:31 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 2202; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:28:31 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:55:49 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: Will Mayall cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Sun, 08 Dec 1996 15:00:02 -0500 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Every site and organization is different - different needs, different bean counting methods and red tape, different way of doing things. The way most people go about this is to make a memo describing: - The resources they already have, for instance an existing T1 with on the average xx% of free bandwidth, a number of existing servers with configuration such and such and xx% utilization, etc. - The business goals for the service: performance, capacity, reliability, and so forth. - Any special requirements they might have. Then they send this memo to the various vendors and request a proposed hardware+software configuration and expected performance/capacity figures. A similar process is used for the freebies and in the end they have a number of possible implementations with price tags and figures. The ones that do not meet the criteria are discarded and one of the remaining proposals is selected, usually (but not always) based on price. By and large, if you set aside the negotiation phase where all sorts of claims are made to try and get a better price, the customers do not care whether the money is spent mostly on hardware or mostly on software. They have a budget, and a dollar is a dollar. Some sites actually prefer to spend more on software because it is a more durable investment. For instance, a solution that requires a PP200 today will lead to frequent hardware upgrades as the service scales up or the Internet just gets generally bigger. A solution that would fit on a 486 today allows you to buy the same PP200 and not have to upgrade it for several years. Or, alternatively, you could use the 486 that gathers dust in a corner of your office and postpone the hardware purchase until the next budget year. For instance, the #3 LISTSERV site worldwide still runs on 1994 hardware. They are going to upgrade this machine soon to increase its capacity, however the upgrade is just additional drives and RAM, due to running out of space. It will probably last another 2 years or so. Again, every site is a different case and you cannot make general rules. There are even sites where the techie just wants to buy the latest/hottest top of the line server for non-business reasons and the requirements and decision process are based entirely on that :-) Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 05:23:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA12492 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 05:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id FAA12470 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 05:14:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA06149 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM); Mon, 9 Dec 1996 05:14:28 -0800 Message-Id: <199612091314.AA06149@bolero.rahul.net> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <199612091054.CAA01732@miles.greatcircle.com> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 96 05:14:28 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric wrote (summarzing the issues involved in using a smarthost): > Perhaps I should clarify what the process Brent described does and does > not do: > > 1. It quickly FORWARDS the delivery chore to your ISP. This makes it a > very convenient way to run a list over dial-up (presumably the ISP's > machine has 24h uptime). > > 2. Your ISP bears the (resource/bandwidth) cost of actually delivering > the mail. This means you had better check with them beforehand unless > it is very little traffic, or they might just send you a bill. > > 3. It does not DELIVER anything. It may give the illusion of fast mail > delivery because the messages leave your machine quickly, but they are > just being moved around to the machine that will actually deliver > them. As I see it, there are two main resources used when running major mailing lists: bandwidth and cpu. It often makes sense to seperate these two, which is what using a smarthost does. A low-end PC can easily handle the cpu load of most mailing lists and is probably the lowest cost way of handling a few large lists. The marginal and average cost of bandwidth, however, falls with the size of the pipe. The lowest cost here is usually obtained at sites with multiple T1/T3 connections. I started my list 3 years ago and it now is of moderate size, 3200+ members. It was bumped off of two ISPs, not for bandwidth usage, but because of cpu load issues. My solution? Same as Brent's: run the list on a PC runing *nix (I use Linux and a 24hr/7day 28.8 link) and use a well-connected smarthost with large bandwidth capacity. My ISP was happy to allow me to use it as a smarthost only and relieve it of list-processing load. The ISP's cost of bandwidth is about 100 times less than mine would be. I also had a few offers from other sites willing to let me use them as smarthosts. It is, of course, important to get consent -- unlike spammers who use relays without consent. It makes a lot of sense to use smarthosts in many cases: it moves the cpu load to where the cost of cpu time is low and the bandwidth load to where the cost of bandwidth is low. Specialized mailing list sites can combine the two, but when I looked into the cost of using such a site, it was 10 to 50 times higher than my costs of hiring a smarthost and buying my own PC. And none offered all the features I require in a mailing list of my size. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 06:59:33 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA14947 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:02:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id GAA14940 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-961106) id GAA01049; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:00:49 -0800 Message-Id: <199612091400.GAA01049@mycroft.GreatCircle.COM> Received: from segate.sunet.se(192.36.125.6) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma001043; Mon Dec 9 06:00:21 1996 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <12.F4D0D15E@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:58:53 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8242; Mon, 09 Dec 96 14:52:18 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 2977; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:52:18 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:30:29 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Michelle Dick In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 09 Dec 96 05:14:28 -0800 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 09 Dec 96 05:14:28 -0800 Michelle Dick said: >As I see it, there are two main resources used when running major >mailing lists: bandwidth and cpu. Actually, RAM and I/O often turn into bottlenecks before CPU power does, at least with machines built in 1995 or later (it depends on which software you use of course). This is a problem because, while CPU power keeps getting cheaper, RAM prices tend to go down once in a while and then remain steady, and there has been little or no progress on the I/O front. The fastest drive you can buy is still 7200rpm and you still only have room for 2 in a typical desktop PC. >The marginal and average cost of bandwidth, however, falls with the size >of the pipe. The lowest cost here is usually obtained at sites with >multiple T1/T3 connections. This is correct, but it is not the only factor. Let's take the case of a list with 3200 subscribers, 100 postings a day and an average posting size of 3k. In a worst case scenario, that's roughly 7.8 gigabits of data. We're doing orders of magnitude here, so let's say 100kbps in use 24h a day (I know the traffic isn't spread evently, but again this is an order of magnitude). That's 1% of a 10Mbps link that costs very roughly $100k/year. So, your bandwidth cost is $1k/year at the 10Mbps level. This is based on what you're paying your provider for a managed line, so there is little or no manpower overhead; they take care of everything. But you're also delivering 320k postings per day. If you're using sendmail, I can assure you that you're looking at a lot more than $1k. You can start by adding a zero and this might pay for the hardware, but then you have to add the manpower to tune the box until you actually get the 320k/day. With this solution, your bandwidth costs are negligible (and most ISPs do use sendmail). >My solution? Same as Brent's: run the list on a PC runing *nix (I use >Linux and a 24hr/7day 28.8 link) and use a well-connected smarthost with >large bandwidth capacity. My ISP was happy to allow me to use it as a >smarthost only and relieve it of list-processing load. I find this a bit confusing as typically the bulk of the system resource usage is for mail delivery, with the list management chores being totally negligible. If I were the ISP in question, I might agree to donate the bandwidth and I might even throw in the list management resources, but I would require you to provide the horsepower to deliver your mail. This of course assumes that you have a lot of traffic, if it is just one daily posting it is another story. >It makes a lot of sense to use smarthosts in many cases: it moves the >cpu load to where the cost of cpu time is low I have to disagree here as well. The cost of CPU is lowest on small, cheap desktop machines. Just divide specint by dollar across the range of home PC desktops, business PC servers and RISC servers and you will find that the cycles are significantly cheaper on your desktop than at the ISP's. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 07:22:48 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA20268 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id HAA20229 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:18:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA20355 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM); Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:17:45 -0800 Message-Id: <199612091517.AA20355@bolero.rahul.net> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <199612091358.AA10350@bolero.rahul.net> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 96 07:17:43 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > This is correct, but it is not the only factor. Let's take the case of a > list with 3200 subscribers, 100 postings a day and an average posting > size of 3k. In a worst case scenario, that's roughly 7.8 gigabits of > data. We're doing orders of magnitude here, so let's say 100kbps in use > 24h a day (I know the traffic isn't spread evently, but again this is an > order of magnitude). Well, here's the real cost data for my bandwidth usage (I do accounting at the ISP, -- the numbers are real): I tried sending out my list over my 28.8 line without using a smarthost. I sent a message of typical largest digest length (40k) and it flooded the link at full-bandwidth (I wasn't using sendmail, and I tuned the MTA to work at full bandwidth -- note, even so, it barely registered loadwise on my PC) for 8 hours straight. Basically rendering my link useless for any other use. To upgrade to a 56k frame relay would run me, oh, maybe $500/month. The cost of this same usage at my ISP is about $6/month or $72/year. Almost 100 times cheaper. Your figures are off by about 10 because my bandwidth usage is less than 40k/day, not 300k. Ever since I made the daily digest be the default (rather than then the message-by-message distribution), very few of my subscribers choose the non-digest. Used to be half and half when non-digesting was the default. With the digest the default, only 3% choose to switch. > I find this a bit confusing as typically the bulk of the system resource > usage is for mail delivery, with the list management chores being totally > negligible. Not in my case. I ask a lot from my mailing list processor. Listserv might well be more efficient, but it's a lot more expensive than buying a cheap PC with the power to run my probably less efficient but free sofware (smartlist). Not to mention that I can (and have) hacked smartlist to do every little esoteric thing that I desired. I still have cpu to burn on my home machine. > I have to disagree here as well. The cost of CPU is lowest on small, > cheap desktop machines. Yup. That's why I moved the mailing list processor to my home machine (a PC) and off of the ISP sun machines. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 07:39:40 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA21523 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:37:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from colossus.arl.mil (colossus.arl.mil [131.218.204.98]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id HAA21506 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:37:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [131.218.204.98] by colossus.arl.mil with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:41:08 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora for Cray Y-MP Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:41:08 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio) Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 11:21 12/8/96, Brent Chapman sent everyone: >>Hope this has reduced the confusion. (?) > >No, whoever named the completely-unrelated Mac shareware product >"Macjordomo" has seemingly guaranteed confusion on this topic for years to >come... Um ... (heh) ... that wasn't the confusion that I had caused, thus it was not the confusion to which I was referring, and thus it could hardly be construed as the confusion I was trying to reduce. I assume no responsibility for the naming of Macjordomo. - Vince S. wavelet@colossus.arl.mil -- For info on HumourNet--the Internet's moderated mailing list for humor-- send the command INFO HUMORNET (only one U) to listproc@csf.colorado.edu -- Fight Spam on the Internet! From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 09:09:15 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA26268 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:50:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA26219 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:49:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612091649.IAA26219@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.C766DC6E@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:49:24 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8937; Mon, 09 Dec 96 17:43:00 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 4385; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:43:00 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:31:51 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Michelle Dick In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 09 Dec 96 07:17:43 -0800 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 09 Dec 96 07:17:43 -0800 Michelle Dick said: >I sent a message of typical largest digest length (40k) and it flooded >the link at full-bandwidth (...) for 8 hours straight. Basically >rendering my link useless for any other use. To upgrade to a 56k frame >relay would run me, oh, maybe $500/month. But you are mixing several things here. What you're really saying is that your 28.8k dial-up line (which, given compression, probably gets you about 56k of usable bandwidth for mailing list purposes) only costs you $20/month plus another $20/month for the dedicated phone line, whereas a 56k flame delay line would cost you $500/month or 12.5 times more. I couldn't agree more, and that's why I have a dial-up setup at home with no plans to upgrade to flame delay, but that just tells us that the $500/month option is not good value for money (at least in your case). A better way to look at the situation is to say that you could spend another $40/month and have a second dial-up line dedicated to the mailing list function (let's set aside the issue of whether this can be made to work on this or that operating system - we're talking bandwidth costs here). For $40/month you would get roughly 56k of compressed bandwidth and your mailing would go out in 8h. This is all list price - no special deals. The charges are split roughly 50/50 between telco and access. >The cost of this same usage at my ISP is about $6/month or $72/year. Ok, so it actually costs your ISP $6/month to provide the service they are charging you $20/month for. You are fortunate to be able to buy this service at cost, and this is all fine and well, but under normal circumstances the ISP would still want to make a profit. The figures I used (other than being higher due to having estimated 300k/day) were again based on list price, ie what you have to pay an ISP to get this bandwidth. I had also included the telco charge, because you have to pay for this as well. Finally, some ISPs have outrageous profit margins and there is not all that much competition in this field. Let's just say that some major ISPs have been SOOOO interested in getting a $100k contract from us that in 3 weeks they didn't manage to issue a quote, and when asked whether they have any interest in the sale, they just responded that there are so many people placing orders that they can't always answer everyone on time. Anyway, we have two issues here: - At list price, the bandwidth costs you $40/month over dial-up (telco included) and $15.55/month at the 10Mbps volume level (telco also included). You can more than halve your costs by getting a fraction of a bigger line, as expected. - The actual cost to an ISP might be just $6/month, and they put the difference between the access charge (ie telco excluded) and the $6 in their pocket. That's life. My point here is that the $6 figure is not realistic because there is no reason for an ISP to want to sell at cost to a normal customer, and certainly the $500:$6 ratio is not representative of a typical situation. At list price you can save say $25/month = $300/year, which is not bad but needs to be applied towards the purchase of cycles on a mail server maintained by a third party that presumably also wants to make a profit. To put it another way, if you have an existing PC with the necessary horsepower to run the list and an existing dial-up connection that you need anyway, and you can purchase the delivery service for $6/month, there is no question that you have the best deal you will ever get. In a traditional small/home business situation, however, the equation is likely to be (in parentheses I'll show the costs with the PC amortized on 36 months): 1. Own MLM+MTA: $2500 PC + $40/month ($110/month). 2. Own MLM, remote MTA: $2500 PC + $15.5/month bandwidth + MTA charge ($85.5/month + MTA charge). 3. Remote MLM+MTA: depends on provider, probably $100-150/month. Solutions #2 and #3 will provide better delivery times due to having more available bandwidth, and are thus preferable in most cases. However I am not convinced that #2 is cheaper than #1. #2 and especially #3 are likely to be a bit more expensive due to the use of more expensive hardware. While it may not be a big deal to this or that customer if his list is down for 3-4 days while the local basement PC company fixes his machine, the provider will have hundreds of lists on the box and needs to take steps to prevent downtime. Whatever these steps are (more robust hardware, backup machine, on-site spares, 24x7 support contract, etc), they are going to cost money. In my experience, most businesses do either #1 or #3. I do know of a few sites that do #2, but there aren't many of them. ISPs don't seem very interested in selling deliveries in large amounts, and there doesn't seem to be much demand either. We've sold deliveries to a few customers at a rate that I thought was very competitive, and they were happy but in the end they brought it all in-house because they just wanted to have it in-house for non-technical reasons. We don't even have a price list for this service any longer because it is more work to keep the price list updated than to issue custom quotes a few times a year. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 10:29:48 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA03321 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:10:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA03277 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:10:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id KAA04155; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:09:35 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:09:34 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612091649.IAA26219@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'd be interested in understanding the costs and performance issues for the following under the various MLM's available: Estimate No. 1: Operate 100 listservs, average of 20 messages per day per list, average message size of 3k. Estimate No. 2: Operate 1000 listservs, average of 20 messages per day per list, average message size of 3k. What would be required for "high performance" delivery of these volumes in terms of equipment, software, bandwidth, etc.? Can (via any MLM's available) "high performance" for both or either be obtained within constraints of existing resources of: 56k frame relay Two Pentium 133 machines with about 100 RAM UltraWide SCSI hard discs One machine running SCO unix One machine running NT Server 4.0 What factors would have to be modified or added to obtain "high performance" under the various MLMs if the above is too little? Thank you. James Cook From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 12:10:56 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA14089 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:04:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.164.101]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA14080 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:04:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 96 15:05:24 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Organization: Electronics Br, PMMDD, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9612091505.aa10504@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Cindy Stanley: > I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with > *thousands* of subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would > attract such a huge subscribership? How long have they been up and > running? Technical in nature, in this case. Currently 391 individual msg and 1962 digest subscribers. Traffic runs from 10-40 msgs/day (more on weekdays, less on weekends). Digests go out daily and run up to 50k each (again, depending on traffic). Running since 14 Feb 91, using the lists channel function in mmdf and maintaining the subscription files by hand (call me a masochist, I don't care:-}). Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 12:12:52 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA11545 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:39:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA11507 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:38:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA06290 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM); Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:38:27 -0800 Message-Id: <199612091938.AA06290@bolero.rahul.net> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <199612091649.IAA26219@miles.greatcircle.com> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 96 11:38:27 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > But you are mixing several things here. What you're really saying is that > your 28.8k dial-up line (which, given compression, probably gets you > about 56k of usable bandwidth for mailing list purposes) only costs you > $20/month plus another $20/month for the dedicated phone line Actually, our retail charge for a full-time dedicated line is currently $95/month. But, we are a high-quality (i.e. minimal downtime, very reliable, non-oversold-bandwidth) ISP. There is also a setup fee to cover the purchase of the modem/dedicated phone line on the ISP end. I telecommute some (not as much as I used to, though) and use the line for other personal business and pleasure, so it's not fair to consider the full cost of that as being the relevent cost. > >The cost of this same usage at my ISP is about $6/month or $72/year. > > Ok, so it actually costs your ISP $6/month to provide the service they > are charging you $20/month for. You are fortunate to be able to buy this > service at cost, and this is all fine and well, but under normal > circumstances the ISP would still want to make a profit. Actually, I had several offers from well-connected educational sites and others to use their sites as a relay for free (!). One suggested to me that I gather solicit several such sites and distribute the load. > My point here is that the $6 figure is not realistic because there is no > reason for an ISP to want to sell at cost to a normal customer, and > certainly the $500:$6 ratio is not representative of a typical situation. The point of the $6 figure was to compare raw costs, and indicate just how big the raw cost savings are and the value of placing bandwidth usage where raw costs are the least. Even with a profit on top of the $6, it's still going to be less than my purchasing that bandwidth direct to my home PC. > To put it another way, if you have an existing PC with the necessary > horsepower to run the list and an existing dial-up connection that you > need anyway, and you can purchase the delivery service for $6/month, > there is no question that you have the best deal you will ever get. My outlay is more than $6 but less than $95 due to employee discount. But yes, a very good deal. And one that many folks running mailing lists can take advantage of (because these folks also tend to be in the position of already having a PC and PPP connection). I agree this isn't a solution for someone new to the internet. In a > traditional small/home business situation, however, the equation is > likely to be (in parentheses I'll show the costs with the PC amortized on > 36 months): $2500 PC? A $400 second-hand 486 can easily fill a T1 with mail traffic (maybe not with sendmail, natch, but any of qmail, zmailer, or exim). And we're only talking 28.8. OK, maybe $600 to bump up the RAM to 64MB if you're actually going to fill a T1. But 32MB is more than plenty if your mailer only needs to push out 28.8kpbs. And go ahead and throw in a second $400 PC to sit there as a spare to avoid the 3-4 day downtime when the first needs repair. Still only $800. Also, option 3 needs to include the cost of the list-owner's own PC and internet connection -- so they can read/monitor/configure the list. > 1. Own MLM+MTA: $2500 PC + $40/month ($110/month). > 2. Own MLM, remote MTA: $2500 PC + $15.5/month bandwidth + MTA charge > ($85.5/month + MTA charge). > 3. Remote MLM+MTA: depends on provider, probably $100-150/month. And 3 is much much more if you want custom MLM services. For instance, my list is heavily filtered (by size, by wildcard subscriber filtering, by keywords, by the length of time a subscriber has been a member, etc), but the bulk of it is unmoderated. My time is the single most expensive aspect of running the list and I will not spend it moderating. Glancing over the rejects takes surprisingly little time -- few are appropriate for posting. And when I notice the number approved getting higher, I adjust my filters so they too get auto-posted. I once got busy and let my list run without my checking in on it at all for 2 months straight. When I checked back, I apologized in email to just one person for missing their complaints about problems posting to the list. They could have gotten to me sooner by emailing me direct, though. But otherwise, the list ran itself -- filtered but unmoderated. Bounces removed automatically. Ah, bliss. Such is the value of customization. Given the hoopla over internet services and the number of businesses wanting in on it without getting their hands dirty, I'm sure your services are priced fairly marketwise. However, the internet savvy mailing list owner can reap substantial savings by doing it themselves. There is no reason for them to pay the market-determined newbie markup. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 13:27:56 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA18884 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:15:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA18843 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:15:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612092115.NAA18843@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.CB500696@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:14:22 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9649; Mon, 09 Dec 96 22:07:57 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 5802; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:07:57 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 21:32:13 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Michelle Dick In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 09 Dec 96 11:38:27 -0800 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 09 Dec 96 11:38:27 -0800 Michelle Dick said: We aren't making any progress here because we keep mixing three things: 1. What certain individuals are able to get through privileged channels. 2. What ISPs could do while still making a profit, if they wanted to. 3. What ISPs actually charge normal people in the course of everyday business. >Actually, our retail charge for a full-time dedicated line is currently >$95/month. (...) There is also a setup fee to cover the purchase of the >modem/dedicated phone line on the ISP end. These $95/month can be further split into three categories: 1. $20/month to pay for the dedicated phone line that will be always active. 2. $6/month for bandwidth costs. 3. $69/month for all the nice things that will make you remember the day you purchased your as one of the very smartest decisions in your life (can you tell I would make a poor car salesman? :-) ). The bottom line is that your ISP feels that it needs to add $69, for whatever reasons, to the $26 that this bandwidth actually costs (including telco). Consequently a likely charge for this service, when provided in the same volume amount but without the $20/month expense for a phone line, is $75/month, not (say) $10/month. The fact that the ISP could still make money at $10/month is not really relevant because the ISP does not choose to bill in this price range. Likewise, I was offered a T3 for $33,000/month from a major ISP. I also work at the Stockholm D-GIX in my "spare" time and let's just say that I'd have a heart attack if there weren't a minimum of 75% of profit in that figure, yes after accounting for all the things in the glossy. It doesn't do much for me that they could sell me a T3 for $8k and still make money if what they want me to pay is $33k and the cheapest quote I was able to find is $12k, from a notoriously overbooked ISP. For practical purposes, I either do the paperwork to become an ISP, pray that I am accepted by enough peers and get the T3 for $0 (plus telco), or I pay the price they say. >Actually, I had several offers from well-connected educational sites and >others to use their sites as a relay for free (!). Again this is fine, but it is specific to your list. The other day a Viet Nam Veteran wrote to me and expressed concerns about losing a number of lists that act as a life line for their members. I dropped a couple notes and within the day the lists were relocated to one of the fastest and most reliable mailing list sites in the Internet. For this service, the Vets are paying $0.00/year, including everything. So, this even beats the setup you have for your list, but the only thing it really tells us is that I am able to find free hosts for Viet Nam Vets. This doesn't help Joe Mechanics who is trying to start an electronic newsletter with "Tips from the experts" for car mechanics. >$2500 PC? A $400 second-hand 486 Well, but people don't want to invest in a $400 second-hand 486. It hasn't reached the point where people actually buy you lunch to remove a 486 from their office (the way they do with, say, DECstations), but we're slowly getting there :-) >Also, option 3 needs to include the cost of the list-owner's own PC and >internet connection -- so they can read/monitor/configure the list. The list owner typically has existing connectivity in some form or other. This could be a PC at the office or a PC at home which is not necessarily suitable for running the lists, or which the owner does not want to use for that purpose. Roughly speaking, people who have no Internet connectivity think Internet = WWW and have no idea what a mailing list is. Consequently they don't want to run one :-) >And 3 is much much more if you want custom MLM services. For instance, >my list is heavily filtered You could simply have people post to the filter address and have it in turn post to the mailing list using one of the moderation methods which ensure that forgeries don't work. Custom programming has to be expensive when you're paying someone to listen to you on the phone, try to understand what you want and then come up with the code, which the customer will invariably say was possibly what was described and SAID, but not what was MEANT ;-) If you can program it all yourself, there is no need to pay these fees. >Given the hoopla over internet services and the number of businesses >wanting in on it without getting their hands dirty, I'm sure your >services are priced fairly marketwise. However, the internet savvy >mailing list owner can reap substantial savings by doing it themselves. >There is no reason for them to pay the market-determined newbie markup. FYI we would charge $135/month for your list with one large daily posting with overnight delivery. Hand holding would come on top of this and could of course get expensive, but people who know what they are doing don't need to pay for that. I am only mentioning this for information as your current arrangement is much cheaper. I do know an ISP that was planning to charge $35k/year for lists of 500-1000 subscribers, which they were then going to outsource to us (keeping the difference). The worst is that they had actually managed to find a customer! In the end it didn't happen, I don't remember why but surprisingly it wasn't because of the price. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 15:28:05 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA26620 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:10:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA26609 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:10:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA11525 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:09:35 -0800 Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0) id AA09387; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:09:32 -0800 Message-Id: <199612092309.AA09387@waltz.rahul.net> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <199612092114.AA22617@bolero.rahul.net> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 96 15:09:32 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > > The bottom line is that your ISP feels that it needs to add $69, for > whatever reasons Yeah, lots (rent, utilites, FCC charges for interstate access that's never used, but you know this). In the SF Bay Area, ISP competition is fierce and profit margins are actually pretty thin. > You could simply have people post to the filter address and have it in > turn post to the mailing list using one of the moderation methods which ensure that forgeries don't work. I.e. I'd have to buy the same PC I use now, and the same 28.8 connection I do now, use the same software I do now, and pay an extra $135/month. And do magic with MX/mail records so it all looks like operates out of my custom domain (mushed between two sites). Quite do-able, of course, I've had my website spread across two ISPs and my home machine, as well as moved the mailing list hither and thither, all transparently done to subscribers. > FYI we would charge $135/month for your list with one large daily posting > with overnight delivery. and without all the features I now offer my subscribers. Hand holding would come on top of this and could > of course get expensive, but people who know what they are doing don't > need to pay for that. I am only mentioning this for information as your > current arrangement is much cheaper. Yup. Because I *already* use the PC and 28.8 connection for other purposes: e.g. to process the CGI calls for my website -- which is why I have a full-time connection. My website is another instance of dividing resources between those that are cpu intensive and those that are bandwidth. All html calls go to the ISP, all cgi calls to my home machine. Even without the discount I get, outsourcing my list would cost at least 5-10 times the *additional* cost I pay to run it off my existing equipment and existing connection. As it would be for any listowner who already has a PC and PPP connection (i.e. most). Anyway, I guess I was just shocked at the cost of listserv (I was mostly interested in acquiring the software). Someone told me that it did a lot of what I like in smartlist and a lot of what I've customized my copy of smartlist to do. As I was investing money in my system already, I was willing to look into it and prepared to spend maybe a couple hundred bucks (despite the fact that I already had fully functional free software to do the task). Heh. Silly me. If you want something done inexpensively and right, do it yourself. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 16:52:50 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA04856 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA04820 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:50:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612100050.QAA04820@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <6.EF84E08B@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 1:50:08 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 1455; Tue, 10 Dec 96 01:43:44 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 9607; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:43:44 +0100 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:54:05 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, Michelle Dick In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 09 Dec 96 15:09:32 -0800 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 09 Dec 96 15:09:32 -0800 Michelle Dick said: >I.e. I'd have to buy the same PC I use now, and the same 28.8 connection >I do now, No, you would need a PC capable of running a filter on however many messages you receive every day. This requires little or no processing power and should fit on just about any existing PC. Since you send one daily digest at a predefined time, the PC does not even need to be connected 24h, just say 30 min before digest time. Again, it is assumed that the list owner already has network access and a computer. As I said in my last message, people without Internet access have no idea what a mailing list is, and want to run one like you want to start a collection of surstromming. I have already acknowledged that your $6/month deal is pretty much unbeatable and I don't see the point in continuing to compare it with regular prices like the $135/month I mentioned. There is just no way an ISP run by people with a minimal understanding of business would charge you $6/month for a daily newsletter going to, say, 3200 lawyers - even if it were just the mail delivery work and you ran the list manager. >As I was investing money in my system already, I was willing to look >into it and prepared to spend maybe a couple hundred bucks See previous postings for a discussion of why a couple hundred bucks is not a realistic price for fully functional, unlimited capacity MLMs. If you disagree, you're welcome to start your own business and prove us all wrong! Incidentally, for Win95 you can buy a 5pt shareware LISTSERV license for $297.00 and we'll optionally deliver the mail for $159.00/year. Again this is more than your time at $0.00 an hour and your $72.00/year mail delivery deal, but I am trying to discuss what normal people need to pay in normal situations where people who customize freebies charge $100 an hour and ISPs charge list price. To put it another way, if your employer had been billing all your customization work to a client, and the bandwidth at normal rates, I very much doubt that it would have cost less than any of the alternative solutions we have been discussing. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 17:17:05 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA05070 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:53:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from library.ummed.edu (library.ummed.edu [146.189.64.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA05038 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:53:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 31732 invoked by uid 501); 9 Dec 1996 19:52:47 -0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 14:52:46 -0500 From: naleks@library.ummed.edu (Norm Aleks) To: artemis@rahul.net (Michelle Dick), list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists References: <199612092114.AA22617@bolero.rahul.net> <199612092309.AA09387@waltz.rahul.net> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.52 Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <199612092309.AA09387@waltz.rahul.net>; from Michelle Dick on Dec 9, 1996 15:09:32 -0800 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Michelle Dick] > If you want something done inexpensively and right, do it yourself. This implies that you are putting a low cost onto your own time though. It doesn't have to be because you think your time isn't worth much, of course: you could say "my time is worth $200 per hour but I am getting $210/hour fun out of doing this as well." But "inexpensive" needs to account for your time too :-) -- Norm "Sure it's going to kill a lot of people, but they may be dying of something else anyway." [Othal Brand, of a Texas pesticide review board, on chlordane] From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 17:40:07 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA07813 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:30:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ibp.dti.net (ibp.dti.net [199.93.169.129]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA07806 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:30:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by ibp.dti.net; id UAA08970; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.dti.net(206.252.128.10) by ibp via smap (V1.3) id smaj08941; Mon Dec 9 20:30:10 1996 Received: from localhost (mrais@localhost) by mail.dti.net (8.8.3/1.2/rdf) with SMTP id UAA02567 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:11:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:11:50 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Rais To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Subject Failure Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Has anyone encountered the Subject header being myteriously dropped from large mailings,( appears on small ones ) and if so, is there a suggestion for correction? --mrais From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 19:09:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA15229 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:45:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id SAA15198 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:45:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA17236 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:41:43 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961209185524.0072f3a4@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 18:55:34 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:05 PM 12/9/96 EST, Tom Coradeschi wrote: >Cindy Stanley: >> I've heard some of you mention that you run mailing lists with >> *thousands* of subscribers. What kinds of lists are these that would >> attract such a huge subscribership? How long have they been up and >> running? >Technical in nature, in this case. Currently 391 individual msg and 1962 >digest subscribers. Traffic runs from 10-40 msgs/day (more on weekdays, less >on weekends). Digests go out daily and run up to 50k each (again, depending >on traffic). The HTML Writers Guild runs a number of mailing lists, and as you'd expect, they get a lot of subscribers because of the technical and computer/net oriented nature of the lists. The hwg-news mailing list has 31,787 subscribers -- but posts are only made about once a month, and all Guild members are subscribed to hwg-news. We use majordomo and a 'splitlist' program to send these out (and it's slow, too). The Guild also has discussion lists on various topics: hwg-basics: 1213 total (752/461) hwg-business: 1663 total (1237/426) hwg-html: 1312 total (845/467) hwg-newtech: 1117 total (708/409) hwg-critique: 442 total (303/139) hwg-servers: 715 total (426/289) hwg-design: 1537 total (906/631) The first four are hosted on hwg.org, running Majordomo; the latter three are hosted at various sites, most of which run Majordomo, although I believe -design is run via Smartlist. The lists seem to hold up well enough under sometimes-heavy traffic, except for -news, but fortunately that doesn't happen very much. :) --Kynn Bartlett Mailing List Manager Governing Board Member HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 20:23:11 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA01111 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from aphex.direct.ca (aphex.direct.ca [199.60.229.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA01104 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from van-as-11c05.direct.ca (van-as-11c05.direct.ca [204.174.245.133]) by aphex.direct.ca (8.8.3/8.8.0) with SMTP id UAA09899 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 20:20:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612100420.UAA09899@aphex.direct.ca> X-Sender: jharlaar@direct.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 20:46:16 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: jharlaar@direct.ca (jasper harlaar) Subject: mailing lists Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk why do you have and maintain such large mailing lists...recreation...business if it is in fact business is it profitable? From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 22:54:24 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA15585 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:45:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.his.com (mail.his.com [205.177.25.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id WAA15568 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:45:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.177.25.174] (brad.his.com [205.177.25.174]) by mail.his.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id BAA25296; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:44:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199612012104.VAA19087@synergy.transbay.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:11:38 -0500 To: "John Buckman" , meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records Cc: dcrocker@brandenburg.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:54 PM -0500 12/1/1996, John Buckman wrote: >Perhaps someone can answer this question: do DNS servers cache MX >records? Obviously, most DNS servers cache hostname->IP lookups, but >I was wondering if they cached MX entries as well. Yup. This is a standard feature of BIND. >Or, are there any mailers (or patched mailers) which cache MX >records? It seems like an obvious place to increase efficiency, >especially with busy mailing lists, so I'd be suprised if some mailer >(MTA) didn't do this. I believe that sendmail already does this. That's why it takes so long when starting up queue runners, especially in "SortOrder=host" mode with version 8.7 sendmail. As I recall, Dan Bernstein seems to think that doing something like this is a "bad idea", and in qmail makes his goal the fastest possible start up of queue runners without any pre-lookup at all. Blech. -- Brad Knowles, MIME/PGP: brad@his.com comp.mail.sendmail FAQ Maintainer finger brad@his.com for my PGP Public Keys and Geek Code The comp.mail.sendmail FAQ is at From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 9 22:57:55 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA15512 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:45:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.his.com (mail.his.com [205.177.25.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id WAA15492 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:45:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.177.25.174] (brad.his.com [205.177.25.174]) by mail.his.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id BAA25287; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:44:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199611281103.DAA27612@miles.greatcircle.com> Message of Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:34:33 +7 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:06:51 -0500 To: Dave Crocker , Eric Thomas From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: list performance metrics Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 2:02 PM -0500 12/1/1996, Dave Crocker wrote: >ps. I doubt that vanilla sendmail can get even artificial high numbers, >due to its tendency to do single message per connection and even per >process, though perhaps the recent round of enhancements has improved >things. The highest numbers I've heard for a "standard" sendmail installation is about 300K messages per day, on a fairly high-end machine. However, I don't know what the mix of Listserv/Majordomo mailing lists vs. "regular" user-to-user mail was -- mailing lists tend to get much higher throughput numbers, because you typically get a fair number of users on each machine, etc.... I have heard numbers in the range of 50K for a pretty low-end IBM desktop workstation, mentioned specifically in the posting of Paul Pomes' program "re-mqueue" to the Usenet newsgroup comp.mail.sendmail. For just receiving and throwing email into a user's mailbox, unfortunately, sendmail is not that great. If you're running a really big site, you're pretty much guaranteed to be replacing sendmail with something you've developed in-house to do that one particular job. You may end up using sendmail in other parts of the picture (such as on mail relays, or to handle the actual sending of outbound messages), but as you get bigger and bigger, you'll probably replace more and more parts with custom-developed software. -- Brad Knowles, MIME/PGP: brad@his.com comp.mail.sendmail FAQ Maintainer finger brad@his.com for my PGP Public Keys and Geek Code The comp.mail.sendmail FAQ is at From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 00:22:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id AAA24497 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:20:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from prawn.fishy.net (flounder.fishy.net [206.156.56.34]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id AAA24484 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from sturgeon.fishy.net (sturgeon.fishy.net [172.16.1.3]) by prawn.fishy.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA17340; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 03:19:12 -0500 Received: (from bonnie@localhost) by sturgeon.fishy.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id DAA53158; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 03:19:12 -0500 From: Bonnie Scott Message-Id: <199612100819.DAA53158@sturgeon.fishy.net> Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (Eric Thomas) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 03:19:12 -0500 (EST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, artemis@rahul.net In-Reply-To: <199612092115.NAA18843@miles.greatcircle.com> from "Eric Thomas" at Dec 9, 96 09:32:13 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Again this is fine, but it is specific to your list. The other day a Viet > Nam Veteran wrote to me and expressed concerns about losing a number of > lists that act as a life line for their members. I dropped a couple notes > and within the day the lists were relocated to one of the fastest and > most reliable mailing list sites in the Internet. For this service, the > Vets are paying $0.00/year, including everything. So, this even beats the > setup you have for your list, but the only thing it really tells us is > that I am able to find free hosts for Viet Nam Vets. This doesn't help > Joe Mechanics who is trying to start an electronic newsletter with "Tips > from the experts" for car mechanics. quoting from http://goodstuff.prodigy.com/Lists/application.htm: "If you have an idea for a mailing list or know of a mailing list looking for a new home, tell us about it. We have over one hundred lists related to our online communities of interest, everything from Ancient Egypt to a Writers Workshop. "We select lists based on their appeal to Prodigy members, and for their fit with our communities. If your list is chosen we will help you get up and running and hook you up with other listowners." Prodigy Mailing Lists may be found at http://goodstuff.prodigy.com/Lists/ We have over one hundred public mailing lists, accessible to anyone with an e-mail address. [For those without Web access, we are at majordomo@listserv.prodigy.com. Humans are at majordomo-owner@listserv.prodigy.com] Bonnie Scott Prodigy, Inc. From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 04:23:03 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id EAA11192 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:18:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id EAA11184 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:18:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA14601 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@greatcircle.com); Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:17:57 -0800 Message-Id: <199612101217.AA14601@bolero.rahul.net> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 04:17:57 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk You wrote: > [Michelle Dick] > > If you want something done inexpensively and right, do it yourself. > > This implies that you are putting a low cost onto your own time though. :-) I must say, if I'd known it was going to take as much time as it did, I might not a done it. At this point it's mostly a sunk cost. > fun out of doing this as well." But "inexpensive" needs to account for > your time too :-) Very true, very true. Of course, in all of Eric's options, customization for my needs still would be required. So there is no escaping this additional cost (either of my time, or paying someone to do it). Which reminds me, my housecleaner didn't show up last week, I need to call her. The reason I live in a place with $420/month rent in the Bay Area is so that I can afford to have someone relieve me of my cleaning time. :-) Though, I must admit I forgot that I'd be forgoing the convenience of pizza delivery when I chose a rental apartement in East Palo Alto, past winner of the coveted "Murder Capital of America" title. :-) I called them all, none will deliver to me. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 04:29:22 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id EAA10598 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:07:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id EAA10568 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA13614 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM); Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:07:15 -0800 Message-Id: <199612101207.AA13614@bolero.rahul.net> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <199612100050.QAA04820@miles.greatcircle.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 04:07:13 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk You wrote: > On Mon, 09 Dec 96 15:09:32 -0800 Michelle Dick said: > > >I.e. I'd have to buy the same PC I use now, and the same 28.8 connection > >I do now, > > No, you would need a PC capable of running a filter on however many > messages you receive every day. This requires little or no processing > power and should fit on just about any existing PC. As would processing the whole mailing list -- fit on any existing (functional) PC. I bought a PC because the one I had is useful only as a terminal -- it is braindead, incapable of reading from its floppy, incapable of talking to com1 or com2 (only to its modem at com3), and incapable of writing to 35MB of its 70MB hard drive. :-) I don't think it's possible to install any new software on it, but it works great as a terminal though! To fill a 28.8 line you just don't need much of a PC at all -- one capable of running a high-powered mailing list filter (capable of doing fuzzing matching on a 3200+ member database) is more than capable of filling a 28.8 line. The same PC is needed. > connected 24h, just say 30 min before digest time. Again, it is assumed > that the list owner already has network access and a computer. And with that same access, it can mail to a smarthost. And I need to be connected 24hr to serv my web cgi scripts and to maintain the non-digest subscribers on my list (only 92 of them, but they are the ones who do most of the posting and make the list as valuable as it is to the other 3200. They do not want digests). > of surstromming. I have already acknowledged that your $6/month deal is > pretty much unbeatable You have acknolwedged a falsehood and totally missed my point. The point of the $6/month (not what I pay!) was to put real numbers behind the claim that the marginal/average cost of bandwidth decreases with absolute size of bandwidth -- and to give an idea of the scale of the decrease in *raw* cost. Thus motivating why folks like Brent and I (and our why respective carriers provide the service affordably) use smarthosts. Because of this scale issue, our providers make a profit and we get bandwidth cheaper than it would cost if we tried to purchase direct from PacBell/Sprint/CIX/etc. > See previous postings for a discussion of why a couple hundred bucks is > not a realistic price for fully functional, unlimited capacity MLMs. If > you disagree, you're welcome to start your own business and prove us all > wrong! Nah, I'll just use the freely available, fully functional, ample capacity for my needs Smartlist program. I don't need unlimited. 5,000 is probably the most I'll ever see on my list. :-) > Incidentally, for Win95 you can buy a 5pt shareware LISTSERV license for > $297.00 and we'll optionally deliver the mail for $159.00/year. Again > this is more than your time at $0.00 an hour and your $72.00/year mail > delivery deal, but I am trying to discuss what normal people need to pay > in normal situations where people who customize freebies charge $100 an > hour and ISPs charge list price. Ah, but I'd *still* have to have LISTSERV customized, so I can't avoid the time cost/consulting cost associated with it. As you said: Even if I went with your service, I'd *still* need my front-end filter. > To put it another way, if your employer > had been billing all your customization work to a client, and the > bandwidth at normal rates, I very much doubt that it would have cost less > than any of the alternative solutions we have been discussing. Yes it would. The customization work would still need to billed under all the alternatives you listed. And I am discussing a situation where an existing internet connection can be used. My use of the ISP as a smarthost falls within the bandwidth usage that comes as part of our $95/month dedicated line accounts. Given my customization needs, given that I have an existing PC and full-time connection, there are no savings to be had by outsourcing at market rates set for those who have simple needs and no existing useful connection. My savings come from realizing that a PC at the end of a dedicated 28.8 line probably has unused cpu capacity and that an ISP provider who's already selling you a dedicated line may well include smarthosting capability with that product or sell additional bandwidth at an affordable price (they are already covering overhead expenses, profit, etc with the product they are already selling you (theoretically, when you buy a *dedicated* line, as a opposed to an "unlimited" or "unmetered" account, you are buying 28.8 bandwidth to and from the ISP 24h/day). When we sell a T1 link to a customer, we consider that they have bought that much capacity *through* us as well. If they want to use it all, we will make sure we can provide it (unlike most of your newer ISPs). Bottom line: smarthosts offer substantial savings and performance improvement in many cases. And this is why many of us use them. And why most MTAs have features to switch on/off the use of smarthosts. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 06:28:14 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA16671 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 05:52:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.164.101]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id FAA16657 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 05:52:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 8:53:38 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: mailing lists Organization: Electronics Br, PMMDD, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9612100853.aa18642@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >why do you have and maintain such large mailing lists...recreation...business A need existed. I chose to fill it. >if it is in fact business is it profitable? Profitable? My employers donated some CPU cycles on an old Sun and a network connection. I donate my lunch hour. I guess you could call that break-even:-} Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 07:23:43 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA23121 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 07:14:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id HAA23078 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 07:14:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612101514.HAA23078@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <12.9CE61277@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:13:58 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4684; Tue, 10 Dec 96 16:07:35 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 6185; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:07:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:18:58 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: 600,000+ deliveries per hour with sendmail! To: Dave Crocker cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:06:51 -0500 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 2:02 PM -0500 12/1/1996, Dave Crocker wrote: >ps. I doubt that vanilla sendmail can get even artificial high numbers, I finally decided to give this a try today. Now I'm not very familiar with the sendmail source code, and I wasn't planning to spend all day on this, so I didn't do anything very clever or try to make any kind of serious optimizations. I just used the brute force approach: 1. I prepared a text file, let's call it 'blah', with a SMTP transaction that has one message with 1,000 recipients on LAN-connected hosts. 2. I wrote a script that counts to 100 and does 'sendmail -bs < blah > /dev/null' every time. 3. I ran the script after starting my stopwatch. When it ended, I monitored the queue until it was empty. It took about 10 minutes. During these 10 minutes, sendmail made 100,000 deliveries, confirmed by an existing script that reads the syslog and makes delivery statistics. That's 600,000 per hour. I don't doubt I could get even higher numbers if I spent some time working on it. I mean, I never got more than 4 concurrent connections with this setup, because the script was running so sloooowly. Clearly there must be ways to improve this, I don't know, submit the messages in advance or something like that, oh and turn syslogd off too. But I just wanted to show that even a complete idiot who has no idea how sendmail works and just tries the Rambo approach can get incredibly high numbers that have no relationship whatsoever to the results you can expect to get in real life. The hardware was a 233MHz Alpha (about 160 specint92) with an ancient 3200rpm SCSI drive (don't ask). It was CPU bound, so a more recent processor should cross the 1,000,000/hour mark easily. I also tried an ancient 486/66 that we have in a corner, IDE drives, all ISA, vendor-"enhanced" sendmail, and one of the crappiest unixes I have ever had to use, too. Even that delivered 100,000/hour with the brute force approach. I hope this helps establish once and for all that lab figures are not worth the (glossy) paper they are printed on. Eric From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 08:42:57 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA28675 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:28:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id IAA28633 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 9765 invoked by uid 305); 10 Dec 1996 16:27:48 -0000 Message-ID: <19961210162748.9764.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: Brad Knowles cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9753.850235262.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:27:43 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk despite the assessment implied by ``Blech'' qmail is trivially an order of magnitude faster than sendmail. i used to use sendmail on our list machine and probably delivered as much mail as anyone with it (~400k remote messages to people all over the internet from the #2 listserv node). sendmail has a number of very clever optimizations related to dns and tcp/ip however it has an enormous, glaring failure for a busy site. it does no good to make 10% of the transaction time shrink to zero if the remaining 90% is expanding toward infinity. we considered contracting with eric to fix sendmail but qmail came along. increase efficiency where it makes things happen faster. my guess is the design of lsmtp is the model one should follow if you want efficiency. ps. qmail doesn't have queue-runners in the sense of sendmail and dan's goal with qmail is maximum *security* with minimum delivery latency. he's actually looked at the way things worked as part of making his decisions (some of which i find annoyingly straightforward). see www.qmail.org for relevant links. -------- In reply to: >Or, are there any mailers (or patched mailers) which cache MX >records? It seems like an obvious place to increase efficiency, >especially with busy mailing lists I believe that sendmail already does this. That's why it takes so long when starting up queue runners, especially in "SortOrder=host" mode with version 8.7 sendmail. As I recall, Dan Bernstein seems to think that doing something like this is a "bad idea", and in qmail makes his goal the fastest possible start up of queue runners without any pre-lookup at all. Blech. --------------------- -- paul pjg@acsu.Buffalo.EDU |public keys at: pjg@ubvm | http://urth.acsu.Buffalo.EDU/~pjg/key.html if the above contains opinions they are mine unless marked otherwise. From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 11:48:42 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA14942 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA14935 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id LAA24910; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:06:34 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:06:33 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists To: Michelle Dick cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612101207.AA13614@bolero.rahul.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Michelle Dick wrote: > When we sell a T1 link to a customer, we consider that they have > bought that much capacity *through* us as well. If they want to use > it all, we will make sure we can provide it (unlike most of your > newer ISPs). > > Bottom line: smarthosts offer substantial savings and performance > improvement in many cases. And this is why many of us use them. And > why most MTAs have features to switch on/off the use of smarthosts. > What is a smarthost? How do "smarthosts" vary, if at all, from ISP to ISP? Is anyone aware of a website or other reference which offers a layperson's overview of this stuff? Does an organization like Rahul.net impose *any* limits on usage of their "smarthost" services to those with 56k frame relay or T1 line customers? James Cook From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 13:06:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA22673 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA22664 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:50:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA26382 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM); Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:50:28 -0800 Message-Id: <199612102050.AA26382@bolero.rahul.net> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Large Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 12:50:27 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk James wrote: > > What is a smarthost? It's the standard MTA term for an external host to which you forward all your remote mail. E.g. your business might run an internal net and forward all remote mail to one machine for remote delivery. This machine is the "smarthost". > How do "smarthosts" vary, if at all, from ISP to ISP? Smarthosting isn't a typical service provided by ISPs -- as Eric said, they even dropped this from their standard quote sheet. You'd have to contract one-on-one if you wanted this service, mostly likely. But many ISPs are receptive to accomodating the unique needs of their dedicated line/T1 customers. If you were shopping, you'd probably want to know what MTA they used and the sort of load the server typically ran under. > Does an organization like Rahul.net impose *any* limits on usage of their > "smarthost" services to those with 56k frame relay or T1 line customers? Of course, but it's not a typical service for us. You'd have to inquire concerning your specific needs. Feel free to email me privately if you are seriously interested. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 13:08:55 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA21977 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:42:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA21970 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:41:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id LAA07345; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:57:06 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:57:05 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Reply-To: James Cook Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <19961210162748.9764.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Paul Graham wrote: > despite the assessment implied by ``Blech'' qmail is trivially an order > of magnitude faster than sendmail. i used to use sendmail on our list a "trivial order of magnitude" or "trivially an order of magnitude"? :) the qmail page describes performace differences as follows. But some of these seem based on the same tests denounced as "not real world" in earlier threads, i.e. on a LAN, etc.?? Scheduling: I sent a message to 8192 ``trash'' recipients on my home machine. All the deliveries were done in a mere 78 seconds---a rate of over 9 million deliveries a day! Compare this to the speed advertised for Zmailer's scheduling: 1.1 million deliveries a day on a SparcStation-10/50. (My home machine is a 16MB Pentium-100 under BSD/OS, with the default qmail configuration. qmail's logs were piped through accustamp and written to disk as usual.) Local mailing lists: When qmail is delivering a message to a mailbox, it physically writes the message to disk before it announces success---that way, mail doesn't get lost if the power goes out. I tried sending a message to 1024 local mailboxes on the same disk on my home machine; all the deliveries were done in 25.5 seconds. That's more than 3.4 million deliveries a day! Sending 1024 copies to a single mailbox was just as fast. Compare these figures to Zmailer's advertised rate for throwing recipients away without even delivering the message---only 0.48 million per day on the SparcStation. Mailing lists with remote recipients: qmail uses the same delivery strategy that makes LSOFT's LSMTP so fast for outgoing mailing lists---you choose how many parallel SMTP connections you want to run, and qmail runs exactly that many. Of course, performance varies depending on how far away your recipients are. The advantage of qmail over other packages is its smallness: for example, one Linux user is running 60 simultaneous connections, without swapping, on a machine with just 16MB of memory! Separate local messages: What LSOFT doesn't tell you about LSMTP is how many separate messages it can handle in a day. Does it get bogged down as the queue fills up? On my home machine, I disabled qmail's deliveries and then sent 5000 separate messages to one recipient. The messages were all safely written to the queue disk in 23 minutes, with no slowdown as the queue filled up. After I reenabled deliveries, all the messages were delivered to the recipient's mailbox in under 12 minutes. End-to-end rate: more than 200000 individual messages a day! Overall performance: What really matters is how well qmail performs with your mail load. Red Hat Software found one day that their mail hub, a 48MB Pentium running sendmail 8.7, was running out of steam at 70000 messages a day. They shifted the load to qmail---on a smaller machine, a 16MB 486/66---and now they're doing fine. From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 13:56:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA29544 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:41:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from colossus.arl.mil (colossus.arl.mil [131.218.204.98]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA29486 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:41:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [131.218.204.98] by colossus.arl.mil with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:45:37 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora for Cray Y-MP Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:45:42 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio) Subject: Re: Subject Failure Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 20:11 12/9/96, Michael Rais said: >Has anyone encountered the Subject header being >myteriously dropped from large mailings,( appears on small >ones ) and if so, > is there a suggestion for correction? I had a similar problem a while back. I had, at the time the problem surfaced, recently started using a feature of ListProc that places a customizable "Comment" on the TO line of outgoing list mail (along with the list address). Suddenly, several list members complained that they were getting blank SUBJECT lines. I axed a couple of them to send me their extended headers, and -- sure 'nuff -- blank subject lines. In fact, *missing* SUBJECT lines! Huh. I removed the custom comment from the outgoing messages, and the SUBJECT line problem went away. Poof! I ran the problem by the CREN folks (thinking it might have been a ListProc glitch -- it wasn't), and Tasos suggested that it might be the recipient's MTA that was barfing on the header. Well, a few experiments later, and (what a shock;-) he was right: Turned out that a sufficiently- long TO line caused some MTAs to wrap the line -- and, in the process, barf on the SUBJECT line. The end result was a missing SUBJECT, and a partially-munged header. Once I shortened the comment by a few chrs, all was back to normal (whatever that is). Unfortunately, this problem goes back a tad, and I cannot recall the magic length at which the TO line went south, or the MTAs involved. I know you mentioned that this seems to be a function of the message size (or were you referring to list size?), but there still might be a pony in this pile somewhere. Good luck ... - Vince S. wavelet@colossus.arl.mil -- For info on HumourNet--the Internet's moderated mailing list for humor-- send the command INFO HUMORNET (only one U) to listproc@csf.colorado.edu -- Fight Spam on the Internet! From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 14:08:16 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA00287 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:48:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA00259 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:47:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612102147.NAA00259@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.93B7B49E@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:47:25 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6682; Tue, 10 Dec 96 22:40:59 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 0262; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:40:34 +0100 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:19:32 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records To: James Cook cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:57:05 -0800 (PST) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:57:05 -0800 (PST) James Cook said: >the qmail page describes performace differences as follows. But some of >these seem based on the same tests denounced as "not real world" in >earlier threads, i.e. on a LAN, etc.?? I think the language in question is mostly trying to establish that subcomponent XYZ of qmail is n% faster than the corresponding subcomponent of Zmailer, sendmail, etc. As I read it, there is no claim that you can get these figures with real world recipients. This is more of a techie discussion where every part of the respective engines is compared in turn by isolating it from the others and testing it. > Mailing lists with remote recipients: qmail uses the same delivery >strategy that makes LSOFT's LSMTP so fast for outgoing mailing lists Something must be wrong. Is the qmail page actually saying something positive about another product? ;-) > Separate local messages: What LSOFT doesn't tell you about LSMTP is >how many separate messages it can handle in a day. Well, since L-Soft has never been asked, it's not really surprising that we haven't been telling Dan :-) I'm not really sure what is meant here. One of our internal benchmarks is to dump 1000 separate messages to LSMTP, with one POP recipient each. This typically results in a rate of 20/sec = 72k/hour on a P100-class machine (this is from memory and assumes you have a fast enough sender). LSMTP does all sorts of things to handle large queues with minimal impact. Our main LSMTP server typically has 25,000-50,000 individual files in its queue on a normal day. Sometimes it goes over 100,000. We don't have specific figures for performance as a function of queue size because it doesn't seem to have been a problem in practice. I suppose we could develop new benchmarks if needed. > Overall performance: What really matters is how well qmail performs >with your mail load. Again it seems clear to me that there is no attempt to deceive here. The LAN based figures are just a technical comparison of the internal mechanisms of various unix-based MTAs. Eric From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 14:29:31 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA03519 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:22:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA03499 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:22:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 20715 invoked by uid 305); 10 Dec 1996 22:21:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19961210222146.20714.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: James Cook cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Aggregating on MX records References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <20704.850256502.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:21:42 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk some things can be assessed via tests in the lab. eric t. recently reported a sendmail test that could deliver 600,00 messages an hour. that's not a real world test because sendmail normally doesn't get input data that way, it responds poorly to a growing queue and it often serializes behind a slow host. if you set up a test bed carefully it can be used to estimate behaviour ratios in the real world. if i run a good test of product a and product b on a fibre ring and a is 100 times faster than b it will likely be true that a will be faster than b in the real world too. if i just cobble up some script and say look, i got product a to deliver a million messages in an hour it doesn't mean anything. all of dan's tests reveal something important about qmail. several are related to *local* delivery which has not (quite reasonably i think) been discussed here. what matters to the person delivering remote mail is mta latency. how long from when a message enters the delivery queue until the remote host says ok. the only way to reduce latency is with parallel delivery. sendmail does this badly for two reasons. one) it doesn't like to and two) the image is large (compared to something like the qmail delivery agent). here's a test: create a queue of 50,000 messages to 500,000 recipients on at least 100 hosts (they can be on the same network but at least two should be connected via a sub-rate link, say 28kbps). the number of recipients should be random per message. start sendmail and see how long it takes to complete the final delivery. repeat with qmail, exim, lsmtp and pmdf. -------- In reply to: the qmail page describes performace differences as follows. But some of these seem based on the same tests denounced as "not real world" in earlier threads, i.e. on a LAN, etc.?? --------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 18:23:19 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA28394 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 18:17:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberca.com (isis.cyberca.com [206.42.216.51]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id SAA28183 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 18:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id CAA09963 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 02:16:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961210211320.0070d4e0@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 Demo (32) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 21:13:23 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com From: Penn Jennings Subject: Connection Reset Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm sure that someone out there can help me. I have one user on a list that keeps generating the error below and I was hoping that someone could help figure why? I'm not good at sendmail configuration, I've used MMDF for many years and only converted to send in the few months for the sake a mailing list software. The current is an SCO platform running the latest OS software and in.identd. The list software is majordomo 1.93 using sendmail. Any help is greatly appreciated. ================================================================= The original message was received at Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:16:29 GMT from root@localhost ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- ggaddis@xyz.com (unrecoverable error) (expanded from: ....) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ggaddis@xyz.com... Deferred: Connection reset by peer with zyx.com. Message could not be delivered for 3 days Message will be deleted from queue __________________________________________________________________ Penn Jennings jennings@cyberca.com http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 10 18:39:13 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA01250 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 18:33:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from burnout.cts.com (burnout.cts.com [204.216.216.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id SAA01013 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 18:32:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from donews.cts.com (root@donews.cts.com [192.188.72.21]) by burnout.cts.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA29756 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 18:32:13 -0800 Received: from fatcity.com by donews.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vXcOZ-0000AJC; Tue, 10 Dec 96 16:19 PST Received: by fatcity.com (Wildcat) id 35893W Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:01:53 GMT From: bruceb@fatcity.com (Bruce Bergman) Subject: WinNT MTA's Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:01:52 GMT Message-Id: <850233712@fatcity.com> Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -> the qmail page describes performace differences as follows. But some of -> these seem based on the same tests denounced as "not real world" in -> earlier threads, i.e. on a LAN, etc.?? -> [...deleted for brevity...] Let me ask y'all something, and *PLEASE*, let's not start another "X versus Y" product comparison, hmmmm? What MTA's are available (shareware or COTS) for Windows NT? I.e., is QMAIL available for WinNT? I've heard of a shareware port of sendmail for WinNT, but I don't know where to get it. If anyone can share leads on products, I'd appreciate it. Remember, no product comparison wars! ;-) thanks, bruce From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 11 01:15:07 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA03408 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 01:05:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolis.com (bolis.com [204.153.195.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id BAA03305 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 01:04:47 -0800 (PST) Received: Received: from hock.bolis.com (root@hock.bolis.com [199.165.142.10]) by bolis.com (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA14661 ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 01:03:28 -0800 Received: from amillar.bolis.com by hock.bolis.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0vXl7v-000G0YC; Wed, 11 Dec 96 01:38 PST Message-Id: Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Alan Millar" Organization: The Bolis Group To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 01:03:26 -800 Subject: Re: list performance metrics X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 10 Dec 96 at 1:00, List-Managers-Digest wrote: > The highest numbers I've heard for a "standard" sendmail > installation is about 300K messages per day, on a fairly high-end > I have heard numbers in the range of 50K for a pretty low-end IBM > desktop workstation, mentioned specifically in the posting of Paul > Pomes' program "re-mqueue" to the Usenet newsgroup comp.mail.sendmail. I suppose that it depends on what you consider "standard" sendmail and whether that includes back-end programs like bulk_mailer. I'm running Majordomo with bulk_mailer and sendmail 8.7.3 on Linux, and bulk_mailer does of course make all the difference in the world. My sendmail mailstats "msgsto" counter for smtp tells me that I'm sending around 60k messages per day (varying from 2k to 3k per hour). This is on a P75 with 40 megs of ram over a dedicated 28.8kbps line (yes, I am performing actual delivery, not passing to a smarthost). I run 50 simultaneous sendmail queue runs, and I'm finding ram is full before the 28.8 line is (although it never gets a rest and is probably two-thirds full towards its absolute max throughput). Interesting to me is that the CPU usage is nothing. Load average figures from "uptime" show an average from 0.7 to 0.9 at most times, with occaisional spikes up to 3 or 4. Using bulk_mailer and simultaneous sendmail queue runs gives delivery times which I consider decent for a 28.8 line, averaging 10 to 20 minutes for every recipient. All of these lists are a few hundred members or less, though. I keep stats on the Web at http://www.bolis.com/stat/ if anyone is interested; my list owners seem to like it. Any other list servers besides the Listserv sites keep stats available for the public and/or customers? I'm still not really happy with my stats gathering currently, but I'm not sure what I'm looking for. I imagine I will end up writing my own program to parse the sendmail syslogs, which currently run 20 to 25 megs of raw log entries per day. Comments appreciated. - Alan ---- Alan Millar amillar@bolis.com Owner, System Admin http://www.bolis.com Ask me about Internet mailing list services at Bolis.com From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 11 10:29:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA11649 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:15:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from cichlid.com (cichlid.com [198.202.199.114]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA11614 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:15:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by cichlid.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #13) id m0vXt85-000GXNC; Wed, 11 Dec 96 10:11 PST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 10:11 PST From: aab@cichlid.com (Andrew Burgess) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list performance metrics Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Interesting to me is that the CPU usage is nothing. Load average >figures from "uptime" show an average from 0.7 to 0.9 at most times, >with occaisional spikes up to 3 or 4. This is not necessarily 'nothing'. I don't know how bulk_mailer works but if it runs as one process with internal threads (as opposed to forking itself for each job) then a load average of 0.7 could mean 70% CPU usage if bulk_mailer is all that is running. Load average is how many processes are ready to run. A runaway CPU bound process on an other wise idle system will give a load average of 1.0 but be consuming 100% of the CPU. Corrections and comments welcome. Best regards, Andy Burgess aab@cichlid.com From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 11 11:38:35 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA18516 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:29:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from outlawnet.com (outlawnet.com [204.245.248.202]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA18476 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.245.248.234] (liv10.outlawnet.com [204.245.248.234]) by outlawnet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA11102 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:29:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:29:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: garyb@outlawnet.com (Gary Bickford) Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V5 #262 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm not sure if this is relevant, but I now RECEIVE nearly 200 messages a day, from the various techy lists I'm on. I've dropped two lists that I really oughta be on, because they each generated 200 more per day, mostly BS. And I don't have time to build/manage filtering - I'm working too long now. gb From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 11 14:08:47 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA05295 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:57:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA05248 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:57:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA11848; Wed, 11 Dec 96 13:57:01 PST Received: from tardis by tymix.Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 11 Dec 0 13:57:00 PDT Received: by tardis.tymnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29989; Wed, 11 Dec 96 13:56:51 PST Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 13:56:51 PST From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Message-Id: <9612112156.AA29989@tardis.tymnet.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com Subject: Re: Connection Reset Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ggaddis@xyz.com... Deferred: Connection reset by peer with zyx.com. > Message could not be delivered for 3 days > Message will be deleted from queue I had a similar problem with "nethang while talking to host xxxx". In our case, the problem was that /etc/resolv.conf was missing from a Solaris-2.x machine. We found the problem by manually telnetting to the SMTP port the problem machine. telnet xyz.com 25 rcpt to: theirname mail from: myname@myhost At this point, the connection would hang for 70 seconds, as the sendmail on xyz.com tried to do a reverse DNS lookup on the origination IP address. The sendmail on my machine also had a 70 second timeout, so it was a race. If the remote machine came back with "250 myname... Sender ok" before the local sendmail gave up waiting, then the message would go through. In my case, the fix was to put a valid /etc/resolv.conf on the remote system and reboot it. -Joe From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 11 14:38:39 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA08491 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from math.psu.edu (leibniz.math.psu.edu [146.186.130.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA08461 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:26:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from augusta.math.psu.edu (barr@augusta.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.2]) by math.psu.edu (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA29719; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (barr@localhost) by augusta.math.psu.edu (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA03806; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:25:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612112225.RAA03806@augusta.math.psu.edu> To: aab@cichlid.com (Andrew Burgess) cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list performance metrics In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:11:00 PST." References: X-Face: $+9-wYg.[->94HJ{go[7Q]E!K&hUg7ZhLyCMyq_FU*ca0GazE>^/2BKLcK0bP-'%;Nn?M+am,jlSP>1K$iz@ %'v'FEW{@](U&Ed/}>ju3Ctlr!XwJ27Q)7h2a%"`sz;j:/3EC[mXi@*X@HE1]'ddq$ZX"ePsMyTkeg >zdML.SVvX1W`adGIUD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:25:47 -0500 From: Dave Barr Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Andrew Burgess writes: >This is not necessarily 'nothing'. I don't know how bulk_mailer works >but if it runs as one process with internal threads (as opposed to >forking itself for each job) then a load average of 0.7 could mean >70% CPU usage if bulk_mailer is all that is running. The load average has absolutely no correlation with CPU usage. >Load average is how many processes are ready to run. A runaway CPU >bound process on an other wise idle system will give a load average >of 1.0 but be consuming 100% of the CPU. You can get a high load average with a CPU usage of 5% but heavy disk or paging activity. You can't use load or CPU as a list performance metric. The main things that really count as a metric here are 1) average latency (time to deliver) and 2) message thoughput (deliveries/hour). --Dave From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 11 16:38:19 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA18777 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from OCELOT.RUTGERS.EDU (ocelot.rutgers.edu [128.6.11.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA18760 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:32:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mbcl.rutgers.edu by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01ICW8KCEAMUAEL2GZ@mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:30 EDT Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:30 EDT From: "E. Allen Smith" Subject: Edited Edupage, 10 December 1996 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Message-id: <01ICW8KCEAMUAEL2GZ@mbcl.rutgers.edu> X-Envelope-to: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-VMS-To: IN%"list-managers@GreatCircle.COM" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Given the discussion currently taking place, I thought the following might be of interest... -Allen From: IN%"educom@educom.unc.edu" 11-DEC-1996 01:36:57.22 To: IN%"edupage@elanor.oit.unc.edu" "EDUCOM Edupage Mailing List" CC: Subj: Edupage, 10 December 1996 >************************************************************ >Edupage, 10 December 1996. Edupage, a summary of news about information >technology, is provided three times a week as a service by Educom, >a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities >seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. >************************************************************ [...] >CONTROLLING TRAFFIC ON THE NET >Cisco Systems, along with Sun Microsystems, Informix Corp., Netcom Online >Communication Services and others, is backing technology developed by Tibco >Inc. that is designed to ease data gridlock on the Internet. Tibco's >technology moves an e-mail message through the Internet pipeline, and then >replicates it at the end of the process for multiple distribution, rather >than the current broadcasting system that simultaneously sends thousands of >messages to thousands of individuals. The consortium plans to submit a >proposal to the Internet Engineering Task Force next year to adopt Tibco's >technology as a nonproprietary standard. "We're trying to solve the >mass-market dissemination problem," says Cisco's chief technology officer. >"If you replicate things 100,000 times or a million times, the Internet >dies. It's as simple as that." (Wall Street Journal 9 Dec 96 B8) [...] >Edupage is written by John Gehl & Suzanne Douglas >. Voice: 404-371-1853, Fax: 404-371-8057. >Technical support is provided by Information Technology Services at the >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. >************************************************************ >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc@educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Robert Musil (if your name is Robert Musil; otherwise, substitute your own >name). ... To cancel, send a message to: listproc@educom.unc.edu with the >message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you have subscription problems, send >mail to manager@educom.unc.edu.) From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 03:08:27 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id CAA28740 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [194.154.62.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id CAA28720 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk [194.154.62.8] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 0.53 #1) id E0vY8lg-0005rc-00; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:53:32 +0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:53:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Manar Hussain To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Smarthosting services In-Reply-To: <199612101207.AA13614@bolero.rahul.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Can anyone recommend me an ISP (in the US or the UK) who offers smarthosting for people who are otherwise not customers. Many thanks, Manar From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 09:53:33 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA25303 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 09:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA25238 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 09:47:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 29059 invoked by uid 305); 12 Dec 1996 17:46:17 -0000 Message-ID: <19961212174617.29058.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> To: "E. Allen Smith" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Edited Edupage, 10 December 1996 References: <01ICW8KCEAMUAEL2GZ@mbcl.rutgers.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29048.850412774.1@uRTH.ACSu.BuFFALO.EDu> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:46:14 -0500 From: Paul Graham Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk they're re-inventing multiple rcpt messages or distribute? -------- In reply to: >CONTROLLING TRAFFIC ON THE NET >Cisco Systems, along with Sun Microsystems, Informix Corp., Netcom Online >Communication Services and others, is backing technology developed by Tibco >Inc. that is designed to ease data gridlock on the Internet. Tibco's --------------------- -- paul From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 11:09:09 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA03308 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mule0.mindspring.com (mule0.mindspring.com [204.180.128.166]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA03290 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:01:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [38.12.203.167] (ip167.san-francisco10.ca.interramp.com [38.12.203.167]) by mule0.mindspring.com (8.8.2/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA40296 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:00:30 GMT X-Sender: themet@pop.mindspring.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:01:49 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: "Mark E. Taylor" Subject: OOPS! Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk By complete accident I sent a message directed to another list. My humblest and deepest apologies. Mark Taylor Editor Online Fraud News Learn more about frauds on the internet! Sign up for the fraud mailing lists or our newsletter at http://www.silverquick.com *No Unsolicited E-mail Advertising* From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 12:40:12 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA11546 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA11512 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:36:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA18656 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:33:08 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961212124331.00718c88@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:47:10 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: FindMail.Com? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I received the following from one of my list owners: >Is this a bit suspicious? Have you heard of these people? I >feel I should quietly remove them... >--me >>Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:38:58 -0800 >>To: casio-keyboarders-approval >>From: Majordomo >>Subject: SUBSCRIBE casio-keyboarders >>Reply-To: Majordomo >>ListSaver-of-casio-keyboarders@vault.findmail.com has been added to >casio-keyboarders. www.findmail.com offers no information on these people, besides an email address to mail. Their primary DNS is provided by archive.org, according to Whois. www.archive.org speaks of archiving "the web", Usenet, and other "public information" but doesn't mention mailing lists. Are these people archiving my list without my permission? Anyone else gotten requests from this site, or have subscribers now? -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 13:24:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA15225 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from osprey.cs.jhu.edu (osprey.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.87]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA15190 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:21:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by osprey.cs.jhu.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA02165; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:20:24 -0500 (EST) From: David Shaw Message-Id: <199612122120.QAA02165@osprey.cs.jhu.edu> Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? To: kynn@idyllmtn.com (Kynn Bartlett) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:20:24 -0500 (EST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961212124331.00718c88@mail.idyllmtn.com> from Kynn Bartlett at "Dec 12, 96 12:47:10 pm" Organization: Computer Science Department, The Johns Hopkins University X-PGP-Fingerprint: D79D345/1048/93 5A E2 39 4A 2A 45 A3 ED 46 9F F1 26 45 37 DF X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kynn Bartlett said: > Are these people archiving my list without my permission? Anyone else > gotten requests from this site, or have subscribers now? osprey:{28} telnet vault.findmail.com smtp Trying 206.14.154.25 ... Connected to vault.findmail.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 FindMail.COM ESMTP Sendmail 8.7.6/8.7.3; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:15:54 -0800 helo osprey.cs.jhu.edu 250 FindMail.COM Hello osprey.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.87], pleased to meet you expn listsaver-of-casio-keyboarders 250 That looks exactly like they are archiving your list without your permission.. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@cs.jhu.edu | WWW http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~dshaw/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 14:54:01 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA24285 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:47:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA24247 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts16-02.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.138.122]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id RAA24876; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:48:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961212225008.00735b38@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:50:08 -0500 To: David Shaw From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? Cc: kynn@idyllmtn.com (Kynn Bartlett), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:20 PM 12/12/96 -0500, David Shaw wrote: >+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. > We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson "LSD and BSD" surely? -dlj. From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 15:39:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA27129 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from maildeliver0.tiac.net (maildeliver0.tiac.net [199.0.65.19]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA27087 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from worldmachine.com (worldmachine.com [204.215.133.237]) by maildeliver0.tiac.net (8.8.0/8.8) with ESMTP id SAA32501 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:26:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from eric@localhost) by worldmachine.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA13611 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:33:32 -0500 From: "Eric J. Hansen" Message-Id: <199612122333.SAA13611@worldmachine.com> Subject: bogus subscribers from Taiwon? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:33:31 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, I just noticed the following stack of addresses on one of my lists: s04152@cc.ntnu.edu.tw s14039@cc.ntnu.edu.tw s14102@cc.ntnu.edu.tw s21486@cc.ntnu.edu.tw s14116@cc.ntnu.edu.tw s14020@cc.ntnu.edu.tw s21472@cc.ntnu.edu.tw They are all valid email addresses, and were subscribed by the "address" themselves (i.e., as opposed to subscription via a WWW interface, which I also allow, and tracked via the originating IP). I haven't heard a peep from any of these subscribers, so this is possibly a set of forged addresses. Has anyone else seen these (or similar addresses from this host?) Regards, Eric -- Eric J. Hansen ................................. mailto:eric@worldmachine.com Worldmachine Technologies ....................... http://www.worldmachine.com From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 16:23:25 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA01048 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:08:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA00893 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:07:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA20942; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:04:11 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961212161411.006bd138@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:18:13 -0800 To: "Eric J. Hansen" From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: bogus subscribers from Taiwon? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 06:33 PM 12/12/96 -0500, Eric J. Hansen wrote: >I just noticed the following stack of addresses on one of my lists: >s04152@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s14039@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s14102@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s21486@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s14116@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s14020@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s21472@cc.ntnu.edu.tw My guess is that some teacher used you as an "example" of how to subscribe to a mailing list. What kind of list do you run? -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 16:31:23 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA29948 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from osprey.cs.jhu.edu (osprey.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.87]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA29917 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:56:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by osprey.cs.jhu.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA02270; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:56:06 -0500 (EST) From: David Shaw Message-Id: <199612122356.SAA02270@osprey.cs.jhu.edu> Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? To: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:56:05 -0500 (EST) Cc: dshaw@blaze.cs.jhu.edu, kynn@idyllmtn.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961212225008.00735b38@inforamp.net> from David Lloyd-Jones at "Dec 12, 96 05:50:08 pm" Organization: Computer Science Department, The Johns Hopkins University X-PGP-Fingerprint: D79D345/1048/93 5A E2 39 4A 2A 45 A3 ED 46 9F F1 26 45 37 DF X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk David Lloyd-Jones said: > At 04:20 PM 12/12/96 -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > >+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. > > We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson > > "LSD and BSD" surely? Well, yes, but that wasn't the actual quote. I don't, by the way, know who Jeremy S. Anderson was. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@cs.jhu.edu | WWW http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~dshaw/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 12 17:53:25 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA11523 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:40:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-e2b.gnn.com (mail-e2b.gnn.com [204.148.102.170]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA11486 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from 31-118.client.gnn.com. (31-118.client.gnn.com [205.188.31.118]) by mail-e2b.gnn.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/GNN-1.0.7) with SMTP id UAA30369; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:39:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612130139.UAA30369@mail-e2b.gnn.com> X-Mailer: GNNmessenger 1.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:45:04 From: TrekDog@gnn.com (Bradford Brown) To: eric@worldmachine.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: bogus subscribers from Taiwon? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >s04152@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s14039@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s14102@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s21486@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s14116@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s14020@cc.ntnu.edu.tw >s21472@cc.ntnu.edu.tw ON my list: I deleted all of these +29 more! Page: http://members.gnn.com/TrekDog/page1.htm Addresses: TrekDog@gnn.com startrekfan1@juno.com ussenterprise-f@juno.com Owner: saratoga-e@stargame.org From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 14:08:58 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA02163 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:06:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA02138 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from lgerson.mcs.net (lgerson.pr.mcs.net [204.95.50.250]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA08824 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:06:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612132206.QAA08824@Kitten.mcs.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lisa Gerson" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:05:57 -0600 Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I received the following from one of my list owners: > > >Is this a bit suspicious? Have you heard of these people? I > >feel I should quietly remove them... > >--me > >>ListSaver-of-casio-keyboarders@vault.findmail.com has been added to > >casio-keyboarders. > > www.findmail.com offers no information on these people, besides an > email address to mail. Their primary DNS is provided by archive.org, > according to Whois. www.archive.org speaks of archiving "the web", > Usenet, and other "public information" but doesn't mention mailing > lists. > > Are these people archiving my list without my permission? Anyone else > gotten requests from this site, or have subscribers now? > > They subscribed to both of my lists a while back, so I wrote to the address on the web page and this is the information they sent me on findmail.com: > FindMail Communications is a small internet company designed to > archive public mailing lists for the Internet Archive > (www.archive.org). Here is the mission statement of the Internet > Archive: > > "Internet Archive is gathering, storing, and providing access to > public materials on the Internet such as the World Wide Web, > Netnews, and downloadable software. The Archive will provide > historians, researchers, scholars, and others access to this vast > collection of data (reaching ten terabytes), and ensure the > longevity of the information." - www.archive.org > > Unfortunately they didn't bother to ask if it was ok to archive my lists before they subscribed, so I removed their addresses from my lists. Lisa ============================================================= Lisa Gerson - lisa@modernist.com, lgerson@mcs.net Collectors Row Antique Mall http://www.collectors-row.com/ manager, modslist & lipgloss(Pulp) mailing lists http://www.modernist.com, http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/1008 ============================================================= From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 14:38:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA04146 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:31:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from garcon.unicom.com (garcon.unicom.com [192.108.105.37]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA04118 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:31:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from chip@localhost) by garcon.unicom.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00147; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:31:05 -0600 (CST) From: Chip Rosenthal Message-Id: <199612132231.QAA00147@garcon.unicom.com> Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? To: lgerson@mcs.net (Lisa Gerson) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:31:04 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199612132206.QAA08824@Kitten.mcs.com> from "Lisa Gerson" at Dec 13, 1996 04:05:57 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0a10] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Lisa Gerson writes: > Unfortunately they didn't bother to ask if it was ok to archive my > lists before they subscribed, so I removed their addresses from my > lists. Archive.org had a spider indexing my web site last night. It ignored the robots.txt file and was sucking down things it shouldn't have. I have installed an IP-level block against widener.archive.org [206.14.154.182]. Archive.org are the same folks who gave us WAIS ... the program that *intentionally* dumps core on a command like usage error. I suggest keeping a distance. -- Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development * URL: http://www.unicom.com/ * 4868D8BE10C86BDE 6017000BA783998E Helmet good. Law bad. From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 16:08:26 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA12898 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:00:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from archive.org (was.archive.org [206.14.154.180]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA12826 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:00:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from burner.archive.org by archive.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA14748; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:59:17 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961213235840.00712a40@archive.org> X-Sender: burner@archive.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:58:40 -0800 To: chip@unicom.com From: Mike Burner Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, brewster@archive.org, zsmith@archive.org Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Archive.org had a spider indexing my web site last night. It >ignored the robots.txt file and was sucking down things it shouldn't >have. Hi Chip, My name is Mike Burner, the author of the robot in question. We reget any difficulties the visit of our robot may have caused, but it is incorrect to say that the robot ignored your "robots.txt" file. We at the Archive are very sensitive to the wishes of the site developers, and make every effort to adhere to the proposed standard for robot exclusion. Your "robots.txt" is inconsistent with the standard and was not parsed as you intended. Specifically, your file has two "User-agent: *" lines: # $Id: robots.txt,v 1.4 1996/11/23 17:57:27 chip Exp $ # Stay out of the spambait pages. User-agent: * Disallow: /spambait/bait- # Flush the old gn-type prefixes from search engines. User-agent: * Disallow: /0/ Disallow: /0h/ Disallow: /1/ Disallow: /1h/ Disallow: /I/ To quote Martijn's specification: User-agent The value of this field is the name of the robot the record is describing access policy for. If more than one User-agent field is present the record describes an identical access policy for more than one robot. At least one field needs to be present per record. The robot should be liberal in interpreting this field. A case insensitive substring match of the name without version information is recommended. If the value is '*', the record describes the default access policy for any robot that has not matched any of the other records. It is not allowed to have multiple such records in the "/robots.txt" file. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/norobots.html#format) The way we parse "robots.txt", the last such entry is honored. I can see how such a mistake would be made, and will change our parser to recognize multiple "User-agent: *" sections. I would recommend however, that you modify your file to comply with the SRE so that other crawlers will not delve into areas you would rather not have indexed. Again, I regret any difficulty this episode has caused you or your group. In the future, please contact me directly about any difficulties you have with our robot. Mike Burner From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 16:39:22 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA16019 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:24:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from FindMail.COM (vault.findmail.com [206.14.154.25]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA16007 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:24:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from hassan@localhost) by FindMail.COM (x.x.x/8.7.3) id QAA17446; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:22:44 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:22:44 -0800 Message-Id: <199612140022.QAA17446@FindMail.COM> From: Scott Hassan To: kynn@idyllmtn.com Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19961212124331.00718c88@mail.idyllmtn.com> from Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kynn Bartlett at "Dec 12, 96 12:47:10 pm" > www.findmail.com offers no information on these people, besides an > email address to mail. Their primary DNS is provided by archive.org, > according to Whois. www.archive.org speaks of archiving "the web", > Usenet, and other "public information" but doesn't mention mailing > lists. We are sorry about the lack of information from our web site. We are compiling a FAQ about our service. It will be available soon. FindMail Communications is a small company designed to archive all *public* mailing lists for the Internet. We will store all of the messages and then later allow for retrieval on a public or private basis. Everyone will have 'free' access to the public archive. This service will be available January 1, 1997. Any list owner wishing that their list not be archived. Please just remove our subscription from your mailing list. Also, please send a message to FindMail@FindMail.COM stating this fact so we don't attempt to automatically resubscribe later. We will place your list on a 'blacklist' and remove all collected messages. We will not touch those lists again. We are also planning to provide an anti-spam system. A automatic way to detect when someone is sending a similar message to many public mailing lists. > Are these people archiving my list without my permission? Anyone > else gotten requests from this site, or have subscribers now? I'm sorry if we subscribed without your permission. We will try to be more clear in the future about our intentions. Cheers, Scott Hassan FindMail Communications From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 16:54:02 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA18015 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:40:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA18006 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:40:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) id QAA04454; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:37:29 -0800 From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199612140037.QAA04454@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? To: hassan@Vault.FindMail.COM (Scott Hassan) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:37:28 -0800 (PST) Cc: kynn@idyllmtn.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199612140022.QAA17446@FindMail.COM> from "Scott Hassan" at Dec 13, 96 04:22:44 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Scott Hassan of FindMail Communications wrote: > FindMail Communications is a small company designed to archive all > *public* mailing lists for the Internet. We will store all of the > messages and then later allow for retrieval on a public or private > basis. Everyone will have 'free' access to the public archive. This > service will be available January 1, 1997. A responsible company doing this would ask _before_ subscribing to a list. I therefore can only conclude that you're not a responsible company, and you don't really give a damn about being a good "net neighbor" and playing nicely with every one else. I assume you're charging for "retrieval on a private basis"? Why not do like the rest of us, and make some money off work you do YOURSELF, rather than charging people for the work _I_ put into my lists and the messages my subscribers send to it, eh? I'm not very sympathetic to leeches, especially those who only ask nicely once they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. (Man, did I mix metaphors in that last sentence.) > Any list owner wishing that their list not be archived. Please just > remove our subscription from your mailing list. Also, please send a > message to FindMail@FindMail.COM stating this fact so we don't attempt > to automatically resubscribe later. We will place your list on a > 'blacklist' and remove all collected messages. We will not touch > those lists again. I'm troubled about the idea of a "blacklist". Is this going to be a public thing? In other words, will my lists now be "blacklisted" and posted on your web site as "blacklisted mailing lists" because we didn't want you to archive them without asking first? > I'm sorry if we subscribed without your permission. We will try to be > more clear in the future about our intentions. Frankly, if anyone deserves to be "blacklisted", it's FindMail Communications, not my mailing list. > Cheers, > Scott Hassan > FindMail Communications Feh. --Kynn Bartlett Postmaster for Idyll Mountain Internet Mailing List Manager for the HTML Writers Guild From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 17:23:43 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA22104 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:17:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from sgi.sgi.com (SGI.COM [192.48.153.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA22086 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:16:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from fogno.corp.sgi.com ([192.102.145.165]) by sgi.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id RAA20112; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:16:33 -0800 Received: by fogno.corp.sgi.com (951211.SGI.8.6.12.PATCH1502/930416.SGI) id RAA12860; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:16:32 -0800 From: terryd@fogno.corp.sgi.com (Terry Diemer, Datacomette) Message-Id: <9612131716.ZM12858@fogno.corp.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:16:31 -0800 In-Reply-To: Scott Hassan "Re: FindMail.Com?" (Dec 13, 4:22pm) References: <199612140022.QAA17446@FindMail.COM> Reply-To: terryd@sgi.com X-Face: '\qr5_l:k~*/u{d=\,i~)y)0[>m]Nph(W/cT9s.7&LWs}k3Ob#KHBo8ofBzI7Em578G|to( w%>+&BHJjtj^;a2c&7HY?:$Ku/|DifegFiyG=1Fiyjr4rXZ84#z1MAv$CCekyy#3/XX4T"}tP&+pNw a|&5P,;7Yeav3/opf"n'&>70}%(gvu"jxhbZffBcS}jbNCtuqrBvYXfI283whQv'&#m0^N@b%]b[-~ V};\X~-8uco=)J9cmpb1_R$l]QIINh=oxUb)0]+ X-WWW-URL: http://www.woodsnwind.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.2S.2 10apr95 MediaMail) To: Scott Hassan , kynn@idyllmtn.com Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Anyone else have a problem with this??? Shouldn't the list-owner be ASKED if they want to be included, and have the CHOICE? Why should they have to take 2 actions to remove their list from the darn thing at all? It shouldn't be included unless the list owner had Specifically Requested such an action!!! I found 2 of em on our server and gee, one was findmail.com and one was FindMail.COM. humbug. -t > Any list owner wishing that their list not be archived. Please just > remove our subscription from your mailing list. On Dec 13, 4:22pm, Scott Hassan wrote: > Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? > Kynn Bartlett at "Dec 12, 96 12:47:10 pm" > > > > www.findmail.com offers no information on these people, besides an > > email address to mail. Their primary DNS is provided by archive.org, > > according to Whois. www.archive.org speaks of archiving "the web", > > Usenet, and other "public information" but doesn't mention mailing > > lists. > > We are sorry about the lack of information from our web site. We are > compiling a FAQ about our service. It will be available soon. > > FindMail Communications is a small company designed to archive all > *public* mailing lists for the Internet. We will store all of the > messages and then later allow for retrieval on a public or private > basis. Everyone will have 'free' access to the public archive. This > service will be available January 1, 1997. > > Any list owner wishing that their list not be archived. Please just > remove our subscription from your mailing list. Also, please send a > message to FindMail@FindMail.COM stating this fact so we don't attempt > to automatically resubscribe later. We will place your list on a > 'blacklist' and remove all collected messages. We will not touch > those lists again. > > We are also planning to provide an anti-spam system. A automatic way > to detect when someone is sending a similar message to many public > mailing lists. > > > Are these people archiving my list without my permission? Anyone > > else gotten requests from this site, or have subscribers now? > > I'm sorry if we subscribed without your permission. We will try to be > more clear in the future about our intentions. > > > Cheers, > > Scott Hassan > FindMail Communications >-- This is the End of excerpt from Scott Hassan -- Ms. Terry Diemer|terryd@corp.sgi.com|Network Services|Mountain View, CA +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, he'll | | sit by the lake all day drinking beer and getting drunk. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 17:38:11 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA23440 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:34:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from archive.org (was.archive.org [206.14.154.180]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA23430 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:34:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from brewster.archive.org by archive.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22134; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:33:20 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961213172604.00a74b68@mail.archive.org> X-Sender: brewster@mail.archive.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:26:14 -0800 To: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com From: Brewster Kahle Subject: www.findmail.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, My name is Brewster Kahle. I work at the Internet Archive, and I just wanted to clarify what we are doing. (I am on this list in digested form, so I cant see realtime what is happening) The Internet Archive is archiving the public information on the net. We think it is important to make a record of this historically interesting transformation. We have already found researchers interested in the data, and we think useful services will grow out of the data as well. As we crawl the web, we are obeying the robot.txt file and other "keep out" signs. We are not collecting mailing lists. There are a couple of groups that we know of that are. We have asked both to make donations of the data they collect. Since in many cases the data is not meant for the limited audience of the mailing list participants, we are not sure what we should do with the data when we get it other than just store it for historical and scholarly study. I posted a draft RFC to this list a month or so ago that would signal that a posting should not be archived by putting a "restrict: no-external-archive" line in the mail header. This was not meant to be a license for people to archive all that does not have that header, but to indicate that the poster does not want it to happen. This parallels the "x-no-archive: yes" netnews header of deja-news. If anyone is interested in this topic, please write directly or back to this list. We have a list about some of the topics of archiving called archivists@archive.org. Please participate! -brewster >>Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:38:58 -0800 >>To: casio-keyboarders-approval >>From: Majordomo >>Subject: SUBSCRIBE casio-keyboarders >>Reply-To: Majordomo >>ListSaver-of-casio-keyboarders@vault.findmail.com has been added to >casio-keyboarders. www.findmail.com offers no information on these people, besides an email address to mail. Their primary DNS is provided by archive.org, according to Whois. www.archive.org speaks of archiving "the web", Usenet, and other "public information" but doesn't mention mailing lists. From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 17:53:17 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA24595 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:52:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA24530 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) id RAA16147; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:42:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612140142.RAA16147@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:42:56 +0000 In-Reply-To: <9612131716.ZM12858@fogno.corp.sgi.com> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk terryd@sgi.com wrote: > Anyone else have a problem with this??? Shouldn't the list-owner be ASKED if > they want to be included, and have the CHOICE? Why should they have to take > 2 actions to remove their list from the darn thing at all? It shouldn't be > included unless the list owner had Specifically Requested such an action!!! I dunno, I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't mind that archivists default to archiving my public lists, so long as they give notice and a method of opting out. It is, however, certainly politer to ask first. (To their credit, the only people that asked first were the Pangaea/Reference.Com folks, not counting that weirdness from Architext a while ago.) I *like* archives and indices and search engines; they're a large part of what makes the Internet so awesome. I'm friendly toward archivers since they perform a service that I'm not (yet) able to do, which is maintain high-quality searchable archives of my lists; and if people want to read a list via a Web interface, or look up a message in an archives maintained by a third party, heck, that reduces the load on my system and network connection. It's not all peaches and cream, but I don't see any reason to demonize archivists in general. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 18:14:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA25793 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:05:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id SAA25747 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:05:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA00917 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:07:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA20939; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:04:10 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961212161248.006c19a8@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:18:12 -0800 To: Jason L Tibbitts III From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:43 PM 12/12/96 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >They tried to subscribe to one of my lists. I removed them and asked them >what they were doing. I received the following: >----- >FindMail Communications is a small internet company designed to >archive public mailing lists for the Internet Archive >(www.archive.org). Here is the mission statement of the Internet >Archive: [etc] I got the same thing. I find it really, REALLY annoying that they don't ask first, but instead start slurping up posts from my list, and -then- they do the "ask politely" thing once they've been noticed. Yuck-o. They can take their "Internet archive" and shove it, in my opinion. (For what it's worth, I'm also bothered by the fact that apparently they're trying to "back up" the entire Internet; in other words, copy and redistribute everything on every web page out there, without the permission of the copyright holders.) -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 18:19:21 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA24825 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:54:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA24817 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA05015; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:49:57 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961213180337.006b0db0@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:03:44 -0800 To: terryd@sgi.com From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:16 PM 12/13/96 -0800, Terry Diemer, Datacomette wrote: >Anyone else have a problem with this??? I do, but that's obvious from my other posts. :) >Shouldn't the list-owner be ASKED if >they want to be included, and have the CHOICE? You'd think that's the way it should be, wouldn't you? Most respectable companies I can think of would do things this way. >Why should they have to take >2 actions to remove their list from the darn thing at all? Because, apparently, I now exist for the convenience of these self- appointed "archivers", who are "doing the net a great service" by forcing me to do extra work. Feh. >It shouldn't be >included unless the list owner had Specifically Requested such an action!!! Full agreement here. >I found 2 of em on our server and gee, one was findmail.com and one was >FindMail.COM. Here's a fun suggestion: Unsubscribe them from your list, but don't tell them you did it, and every day or two, send them a few uuencoded core files to the archiving address. Naturally, I wouldn't do such a thing myself. But boy, it's sure fun to think about. >humbug. Ditto. -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 18:23:07 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA25725 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:05:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id SAA25716 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:05:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA17034 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:44:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (tibbs@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA27830; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:43:51 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199612122143.PAA27830@sina.hpc.uh.edu> To: kynn@idyllmtn.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:47:10 -0800" References: <3.0.32.19961212124331.00718c88@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Mailer: Mew beta version 0.98 on Emacs 19.34.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:43:51 -0600 From: Jason L Tibbitts III Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "KB" == Kynn Bartlett writes: KB> Are these people archiving my list without my permission? Anyone else KB> gotten requests from this site, or have subscribers now? They tried to subscribe to one of my lists. I removed them and asked them what they were doing. I received the following: ----- Received: from FindMail.COM (vault.findmail.com [206.14.154.25]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA27621 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 21:49:46 -0600 (CST) Received: (from hassan@localhost) by FindMail.COM (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA28483; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:47:50 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:47:50 -0800 Message-Id: <199612030347.TAA28483@FindMail.COM> From: Scott Hassan To: tibbs@hpc.uh.edu Subject: Re: This address looks suspicious Lines: 38 > ListSaver-of-fvwm@vault.findmail.com > Exactly what is at this address? It looks to me like an email > archiving service, and one which I have not been explicitly asked to > join at that. I have removed the address from my list pending an > explanation. Mr. Tibbitts, FindMail Communications is a small internet company designed to archive public mailing lists for the Internet Archive (www.archive.org). Here is the mission statement of the Internet Archive: "Internet Archive is gathering, storing, and providing access to public materials on the Internet such as the World Wide Web, Netnews, and downloadable software. The Archive will provide historians, researchers, scholars, and others access to this vast collection of data (reaching ten terabytes), and ensure the longevity of the information." - www.archive.org FindMail Communications would like to archive the FVWM mailing list. FindMail will not post any messages to the list. We will store all of the messages and then later allow for retrieval on a public or private basis. If this is acceptable, please place ListSaver-of-fvwm@FindMail.COM as a subscriber to the list. If not, I respect your decision and thank you for your time. Sincerely, Scott Hassan FindMail Communications ----- I blew it off. -- Jason L. Tibbitts III - tibbs@uh.edu - 713/743-8684 - 221SR1 System Manager: University of Houston High Performance Computing Center 1994 PC800 "Kuroneko" DoD# 1723 From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 18:24:12 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA24700 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:53:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA24675 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA05012; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:49:56 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961213180015.006b0db0@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:03:44 -0800 To: Brewster Kahle From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: www.findmail.com Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:26 PM 12/13/96 -0800, Brewster Kahle wrote: >Hi, My name is Brewster Kahle. I work at the Internet Archive, and I just >wanted to clarify what we are doing. >The Internet Archive is archiving the public information on the net. We >think it is important to make a record of this historically interesting >transformation. We have already found researchers interested in the data, >and we think useful services will grow out of the data as well. So you "think it's important" to make unauthorized copies of my copyrighted web pages without asking me first? Well, I'm certainly glad you think it's important, but sorry, it's illegal. That, however, is an issue for another list, as it's not about mailing list management. >As we crawl the web, we are obeying the robot.txt file and other "keep out" >signs. (I've heard this to not be true. In other words, I've heard reports that your indexer does _not_ obey the robots.txt file, despite what you and your web page may claim.) >We are not collecting mailing lists. There are a couple of groups that we >know of that are. We have asked both to make donations of the data they >collect. Since in many cases the data is not meant for the limited >audience of the mailing list participants, we are not sure what we should >do with the data when we get it other than just store it for historical and >scholarly study. Please tell me who these other groups are, besides FindMail.com. The fact that FindMail.com's primary DNS comes from archives.org's name- server leads me to believe that there's more of a connection between the two groups than you're admitting to here. I'll also note that at no time was _I_ ever asked if the "data" collected from my mailing lists _was_ meant for the limited audience of the mailing list participants. I find it extremely arrogant that you or FindMail.com would assume, without asking me, that mail sent sent only to a select list of subscribers is nevertheless, somehow, meant for a broader audience than those it was sent to. That kind of assumption is preposterous! >I posted a draft RFC to this list a month or so ago that would signal that >a posting should not be archived by putting a "restrict: >no-external-archive" line in the mail header. This was not meant to be a >license for people to archive all that does not have that header, but to >indicate that the poster does not want it to happen. This parallels the >"x-no-archive: yes" netnews header of deja-news. I remember that. I thought it was bogus in the extreme, and I can't imagine there are many people using it, unless they've automatically put it on every list they run, like garlic, to keep your variety of archivampires away from the necks of their mailing lists. As I said then -- the procedure should not be "put this in your headers if you don't want to be archived." The procedure _should_ be, "put this in your headers if you DO want to be archived." But, of course, you couldn't archive very much if we did things that way, eh? Oh, I'm sorry -- I mean "those other organizations". I forgot that, despite writing an RFC about archiving other people's lists without their permission, you're actually doing nothing of the sort. Uh huh. >If anyone is interested in this topic, please write directly or back to >this list. We have a list about some of the topics of archiving called >archivists@archive.org. Please participate! Feh. I might subscribe, but I'm sure I'd spend all my time flaming rabid archivampires who are out to suck the blood of every list on the net in the name of "archiving for posterity and research". This "data" you so flippantly toss around is not yours -- it belongs to me, and the people on my lists. And we'll thank you to ask first before fanging us. >-brewster --Kynn, told you who I am enough times already -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 18:53:13 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA28324 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id SAA28309; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:51:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612140251.SAA28309@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.8F0F0743@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 3:51:32 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9053; Sat, 14 Dec 96 03:45:11 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 5551; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 03:45:11 +0100 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 03:13:34 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: www.findmail.com To: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com, list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM, Brewster Kahle cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:26:14 -0800 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:26:14 -0800 Brewster Kahle said: >The Internet Archive is archiving the public information on the net. We >think it is important to make a record of this historically interesting >transformation. We have already found researchers interested in the >data, and we think useful services will grow out of the data as well. You know, we list owners hear a lot of tales of pristine altruism. What we actually want to know, though, is whether you are planning to make a profit from our data or not. If the answer is yes, most of us think you should ask for permission in advance. You see, you are operating on the legal premise that anyone is free to subscribe to these lists and consequently you are free to do so, and keep a copy of all the messages you ever received, and this is all fine as long as this is just a mega database on your workstation for your own personal use. But you're also planning to make money from this work, which isn't yours. It isn't in the public domain, you don't own the copyright, and you're making the assumption that the implicit license that exists when you subscribe also allows you to make money from the work. Let's just say that's at best a controversial point in law and many list owners certainly feel it shouldn't be allowed. You may just end up having your company black listed on large servers. Eric From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 21:23:08 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA03917 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 21:13:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca [128.100.102.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id VAA03902 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 21:13:10 -0800 (PST) From: rasmus@vex.net Received: from krone.lerdorf.on.ca (krone.lerdorf.on.ca [207.164.141.2]) by madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (8.7.4/8.7.1) with SMTP id AAA07034; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:12:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:12:31 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rasmus@vex.net Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? To: terryd@sgi.com cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9612131716.ZM12858@fogno.corp.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Anyone else have a problem with this??? Shouldn't the list-owner be ASKED > if they want to be included, and have the CHOICE? Why should they have to > take 2 actions to remove their list from the darn thing at all? It > shouldn't be included unless the list owner had Specifically Requested such > an action!!! I run a bunch of mailing lists myself. A number of users on my various mailing lists archive the messages. And a couple have made these archives available on their web pages. It doesn't bother me a bit that they do this. I do not feel I own the information passing through the list, nor did I inform people when they subscribed that they were not allowed to republish the information obtained from the list. If you have public mailing lists that you allow anybody to subscribe to and you do not explicitly prohibit people from republishing the material, I don't think you can complain about the service findmail.com is trying to build. They are just like any user on your list, except on a larger scale. -Rasmus From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 13 22:53:22 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA08113 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id WAA08081 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:42:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id AAA27843 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:43:34 -0600 Message-Id: <199612140643.AAA27843@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: Re: FindMail.Com? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:43:34 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I think that this archiving of lists, web pages, etc, esp. w/o permission is going to be more and more common. If you manage a public list, you should really consider developing a policy, maybe publishing it in the description or introductory message. This is why I have copyrights on all my web pages, no matter how trivial - because there are too many people out there ready to run off with it as if it were theirs. -Miles meo@schoneal.com From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 00:23:13 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id AAA11392 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:20:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.ecentral.com ([204.227.4.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id AAA11378 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from 204.227.4.41 (ppp21.ecentral.com [204.227.4.41]) by www.ecentral.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA02588 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:19:21 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <32B2641A.46C@ecentral.com> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:23:54 -0700 From: Cindy Stanley Reply-To: connect@ecentral.com Organization: Unschooling List X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: www.findmail.com References: <199612140251.SAA28309@miles.greatcircle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Brewster Kahle said: > >The Internet Archive is archiving the public information on the net. We > >think it is important to make a record of this historically interesting > >transformation. We have already found researchers interested in the > >data, and we think useful services will grow out of the data as well. Eric Thomas wrote: > But you're also > planning to make money from this work, which isn't yours. It isn't in the > public domain, you don't own the copyright, and you're making the > assumption that the implicit license that exists when you subscribe also > allows you to make money from the work. Let's just say that's at best a > controversial point in law and many list owners certainly feel it > shouldn't be allowed. You may just end up having your company black > listed on large servers. I'd have to agree with Eric (and Kynn) on the many points they've brought up. I think all list owners should be *asked* first if they want such a *service*. I know that neither my subscribers nor myself would want the UL's posts archived somewhere without our express permission. What do you do in a case where a list doesn't have the "magic words" in their headers, but specifically state in their Welcome Message that all postings are the property of the authors and may not be forwarded or distributed elsewhere without express permission? My WM has such a disclaimer, but it wouldn't do you much good to ask *me* if you could archive the list's messages, as I didn't write them all. Did you know that all email is assumed to be copyrighted by the author, whether it states that it is or not? For more info on email copyrights and common courtesies concerning other people's posts, check out these websites: Copyrights in Cyberspace - by Steve Elias http://www.nolo.com/nn197.html 10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained - by Brad Templeton http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html Cyberspace-Law for Non-Lawyers http://www.cli.org) Social Science Electronic Publishing http://www.ssrn.org Cindy Unschooling List Mom connect@ecentral.com "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has". - Margaret Mead copyright, 1996 From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 03:08:10 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id DAA17862 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 03:00:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from bbfm.di.com (bbfm.di.com [207.71.205.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id DAA17844 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 03:00:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by bbfm.di.com with id CAA14469 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM on Sat, 14 Dec 1996 02:50:22 -0800 From: Todd Day Message-Id: <199612141050.CAA14469@bbfm.di.com> Subject: What is the real point of a list archive? To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 02:50:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <199612140900.BAA12738@miles.greatcircle.com> from "List-Managers-Digest" at Dec 14, 96 01:00:28 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > So you "think it's important" to make unauthorized copies of my copyrighted > web pages without asking me first? Well, I'm certainly glad you think > it's important, but sorry, it's illegal. > This > "data" you so flippantly toss around is not yours -- it belongs to me, > and the people on my lists. I went to your website and poked through a couple of your lists. I couldn't find any info about what was acceptable use of the archives there. Most notably, your copyright notice didn't lead to a sheet stating just what was acceptable use of the documents therein. I noticed the data that "belongs to you and the people on your lists" was open for anyone to access. Is that your intention? Am I stealing if I click on those pages and the page appears on my screen and gets stored in my netscape cache? Am I stealing if I get a great idea from your list that saves or makes me quite a bit of money? You might be copyright holder, but you have left your archives open for people to copy without stating what is acceptable and what is not. Copyrights in the age of the Internet are not very well understood by many people, so it is important that you clearly state what you want to allow people to do with your data. It will save you a lot of pain in the future. I am not in any way trying to excuse findmail.com for their rude behaviour. > Feh. I might subscribe, but I'm sure I'd spend all my time flaming > rabid archivampires who are out to suck the blood of every list on > the net in the name of "archiving for posterity and research". I understand that you feel passionately about this topic. However, you are coming off pretty strong in your messages, especially when compared to the rather reasonably *worded* and *sounding* messages from findmail.com. We should try to reach some understanding with these people, not try to make them mad at us by flaming them. Then they will keep on doing what they have been doing. ~ Personally, I can understand where you are coming from. You like me have worked hard to build mailing lists that people can use to furthur their understanding of some topic or common interest. We've done it with little or no funding for our work, and we still get a great feeling every time we get a thank you from someone on our lists. Then these archival people come in and want to put your list into a database that people can access, maybe for free, but most likely at least covered in banner ads, with premium searches at a fee. One of the things I've struggled with is making a decent index of all of my archives. I'm currently using wais, but an old and decrepit one with crappy boolean tools, no article aging, etc. I've also got a slow link to the net. I'm ready to cave into these big database people if my list members can access the data in a form that I'm happy with. I just don't have the hardware or software or time to make something that will work well. If they put up banner ads, well, so what, the most important thing to me is that my list members can access that data for free, in a nice, quick, format on a fast machine. After all, I built the archives for the convenience of the list members. Frankly, the archivists would be doing me a big favor. Only problem is, I've only been contacted by a rather crappy archiver that can't do searches based upon lists - all of the searches search their entire database! ~ I've really given up on feeling ripped-off by "big business" when it comes to my site and digest. I have over 300 subscribers from AOL, and I'm certain that almost half of them got started on AOL simply because they wanted to access my digest. Many AOLers have told me this. netcom.com as well. I never get a cut of their profits. My site and digest have sold many cars for Mitsubishi and Chrysler - not once have I heard a peep from them, either. Many of my readers have written me and said they decided on their car purchase because of the huge depth of info my digest provides, and the sense of community we have (as silly as that sounds - it is just a car, after all). But I don't get dime-one from them either. Car dealers have written me and said they have sold cars after refering people to my digest and site. No money there, either. The point is, if you go out to not make a dime on what you do, you shouldn't feel so bad when others benefit as a result - it *will* happen, whether you hear about it or not. It is a waste of time to fret about it. I've decided just to concentrate on my original goal - connecting people with the same interests in cars so they can exchange information and have fun with their hobby. -todd- -talon mgr The Talon Digest http://www.dsm.org PS - No, I don't have an acceptable use policy on my site, either! I should go work on one... PPS - This past year, my list members have been quite generous and have sent me *quite* a bit of beer money and some car related items, all unsolicited. It's not the money, but that they felt like they *had* to send me something for my efforts, that felt really good and gave me a good ego boost. So it is true what they say - what goes around, comes around... From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 04:53:18 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id EAA20149 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 04:42:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id EAA20140 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 04:42:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612141242.EAA20140@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.05F8D779@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:41:51 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 0141; Sat, 14 Dec 96 13:35:30 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 7894; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:35:30 +0100 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:07:07 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: What is the real point of a list archive? To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, Todd Day In-Reply-To: Message of Sat, 14 Dec 1996 02:50:22 -0800 (PST) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 02:50:22 -0800 (PST) Todd Day said: >One of the things I've struggled with is making a decent index of all of >my archives. (...) I'm ready to cave into these big database people if >my list members can access the data in a form that I'm happy with. I >just don't have the hardware or software or time to make something that >will work well. If they put up banner ads, well, so what, the most >important thing to me is that my list members can access that data for >free, in a nice, quick, format on a fast machine. After all, I built the >archives for the convenience of the list members. Frankly, the >archivists would be doing me a big favor. I think the key here is that you and your subscribers are benefiting from the service provided by the archivers, because you don't have the necessary resources to provide it yourself. However, this is not the case for everyone. To give you an example, we run a large mailing list server with an extensive collection of XYZ-related lists for a customer (I'll hide the topic so that the discussion doesn't end up focusing on the topic rather than the generic issue). A web archive browser is available, with database search facility. And the servers are fast, as a matter of policy we refuse to outsource on hardware that we feel is not up to the task and would give a bad impression of our outsourcing service. Now, we're just running the service, and we don't have any claims to the contents. If the customer wants to allow the lists to be archived on a third party's site, that's essentially none of our business. On the other hand, if the customer has NOT been asked, it is up to us to define the default policy as outsourcing customers are paying us so that they don't have to worry about mailing list technicalities that they may not be familiar with. I also doubt they want to be told every time a person or robot tries to subscribe to all their mailing lists. Now let's say that one day we find this web site about XYZ, with the usual ad banners, offering a big database of miscellaneous info about XYZ. People sign up to read up on all the various aspects of XYZ, and the people running the site collect advertisement dollars. And let's say that a fairly large proportion of this database comes from the archives of our customer's 100+ XYZ related lists, which were "sucked" without permission. Well, again maybe the customer doesn't mind, but maybe they'll get mad. They're sponsoring these lists for PR reasons, and I think there's a good chance that they wouldn't be happy if another site collected all the credit + advertisement dollars. It's not like there's anything preventing the XYZ site from starting its own XYZ lists with its own $$$. All in all, I can't think of any possible benefit for the customer in allowing this usage of the data. As a matter of fact, most of the MANY lists that run on servers I manage fall in this category. They're invariably sponsored by some organization or other that wants either revenue, PR or at least proper academic recognition, and there is always a browsing service with database searching. Or then they're sponsored by an individual, out of his own pocket, and that person will typically expect some sort of sponsorship in exchange for the data, to help recover his costs for supporting the list. This is why I find these auto-subscribers so annoying. They cause us to waste precious time explaining to customers why their data was "sucked" without their control and taking corrective action. I'll trade 10 spammers for 1 archiver any day, as we have tools to deal with the former automatically and without the customers ever becoming aware of the problem. Archivers subscribe much too slowly to be properly and accurately detected and invariably end up requiring manual intervention after the fact. Eric From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 06:08:28 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA21698 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 05:54:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from echonyc.com (echonyc.com [198.67.15.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id FAA21691 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 05:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sbarber@localhost) by echonyc.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id IAA29631 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:54:15 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Barber Message-Id: <199612141354.IAA29631@echonyc.com> Subject: Archiving To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:54:14 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Folks -- I think when you vilify Brewster Kahle, you are going after the wrong person. In about twenty years, all of us -- except for the usual mean-spirited cranks -- are going to be ecstatic that the archives he's been instigating exist at all. Losing the history of the Internet would be a bad thing. So far, unless I've missed something big, he's stated over and over again, and very publicly, that the archives he's putting together are reserved for historical and scholarly purposes. As an attorney who focuses on the evolving law of online systems, I can tell you with some confidence that if he keeps his collections for those purposes, it would be extremely difficult to prevail on any copyright claims against the archive. Copyright does not give the copyright owner the absolute right to control all uses of the copyrighted material -- and historical and scholarly uses of the material such as Mr. Kahle describes are very probably (but not absolutely, positively) fair uses. Copyright law and the US Constitution still recognize that copyright owners don't always have society's interest at heart, and that's why it is not always required to have permission of the copyright owner to use the works. Get over it. It's interesting to note that Mr. Kahle is aware of the legal uncertainties of the fair use claim, and has decided to put his money where his mouth is and proceed anyway. Those who disagree with his legal interpretations ought to quit flaming and put their money where their mouths are and sue him over this if they feel so strongly. Otherwise, please spare us your flaccid indignation. That said, I'd have to agree with those who are cautious of FindMail. >From their own statements, their intentions are ambiguous. It sounds like they are not ruling out making money of this deal. But those list owners who seem shocked that someone would have the audacity to archive the contents of a mailing list whose subscriptions are open to all are living in some fantasy world of their own devising. Copyright is really not designed, nor intended, to regulate this. Nor should it be. Once people start selling access to archived material, that's another story. By the way, I have never met Mr. Kahle and don't know him by other than reputation and his public statements. -Steve Barber From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 08:23:37 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA26102 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:22:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA26095 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:22:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from attitude.queernet.org (rogerk@attitude.queernet.org [140.174.78.2]) by queernet.queernet.org (8.8.3/8.8.2) with SMTP id IAA25555 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19961214082141.01cd9518@pop.queernet.org> X-Sender: rogerk@pop.queernet.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 beta 3 (32) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:21:42 -0800 To: Steve Barber From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Archiving Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:54 AM 12/14/96 -0500, Steve Barber wrote: >But those list owners who seem shocked that someone would have the >audacity to archive the contents of a mailing list whose subscriptions >are open to all are living in some fantasy world of their own >devising. It's not a copyright issue for many of us. It's a rudeness issue. Many of us run our mailing list as a club, with one of the rules being it is inappropriate to betray confidences by sharing posts. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG 2215-R Market Street #576 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 12:38:30 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA03504 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from burnout.cts.com (burnout.cts.com [204.216.216.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA03487 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:32:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from donews.cts.com (root@donews.cts.com [192.188.72.21]) by burnout.cts.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA23223 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:32:24 -0800 Received: from fatcity.com by donews.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vZ0kE-00005HC; Sat, 14 Dec 96 12:31 PST Received: by fatcity.com (Wildcat) id 25200W Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:05:11 GMT From: bruceb@fatcity.com (Bruce Bergman) Subject: Re: Archiving Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:05:11 GMT Message-Id: <850565111@fatcity.com> Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -> At 08:54 AM 12/14/96 -0500, Steve Barber wrote: -> >But those list owners who seem shocked that someone would have the -> >audacity to archive the contents of a mailing list whose subscriptions -> >are open to all are living in some fantasy world of their own -> >devising. -> It's not a copyright issue for many of us. It's a rudeness issue. -> Many of us run our mailing list as a club, with one of the rules -> being it is inappropriate to betray confidences by sharing posts. I totally agree with the rudeness issue 100%. However, as Steve just pointed out, the latest thread in these discussions has been over *copyright* concerns. As one who holds a patent and several copyrights (for works in print AND in software), let me tell you: he's right. Anyone who has actually investigated copyright issues, or who has fought off threats, or better yet, anyone who has visited the lawyers for an explanation, can tell the ignorant from the enlightened. The ignorant are those who assume that putting a copyright notice on a posting or an E-mail makes it "safe" and "theirs" and implies some sort of magic protection which others must obey. The enlightened are those who relax and make reasonable efforts to ensure their interests are protected, but NOT by cluttering up everything they do with copyright notices. It's laughable sometimes, but then I remember when *I* was ignorant and presumptive, and I shrug. Personally, I haven't made up my mind on the archive/spider issues, but I'm content to let them crawl around as long as I don't find my subscriber's privacy and/or content being compromised. With or without the copyright. No one likes to be caught standing naked the street... Cheers, bruce From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 15:38:47 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA09986 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:29:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from bbfm.di.com (bbfm.di.com [207.71.205.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA09972 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:29:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by bbfm.di.com with id PAA19665 on Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:19:21 -0800 From: Todd Day Message-Id: <199612142319.PAA19665@bbfm.di.com> Subject: Re: What is the real point of a list archive? To: ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (Eric Thomas) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:19:21 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199612141232.EAA15606@bbfm.di.com> from "Eric Thomas" at Dec 14, 96 01:07:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Now let's say that one day we find this web site about XYZ, with the > usual ad banners, offering a big database of miscellaneous info about > XYZ. People sign up to read up on all the various aspects of XYZ, and the > people running the site collect advertisement dollars. And let's say that > a fairly large proportion of this database comes from the archives of our > customer's 100+ XYZ related lists, which were "sucked" without > permission. Well, again maybe the customer doesn't mind, but maybe > they'll get mad. They're sponsoring these lists for PR reasons, and I > think there's a good chance that they wouldn't be happy if another site > collected all the credit + advertisement dollars. It's not like there's > anything preventing the XYZ site from starting its own XYZ lists with its > own $$$. Hmmmm... yes, I didn't consider the possibility of lists that were intended to draw money in the first place. In the case of the person I was replying to, there didn't seem to be a profit motive on the lists on her site, similar to mine. But yes, you are completely correct, archivists certainly shouldn't be allowed to make a buck on information that you are trying to make a buck on. That is theft, no doubt. I guess I didn't glean that from the posts I read. -todd- From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 16:57:46 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA12055 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:43:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from OCELOT.RUTGERS.EDU (ocelot.rutgers.edu [128.6.11.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA12048 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:43:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mbcl.rutgers.edu by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01ID0FTXSTQCAEL9Q6@mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:42 EDT Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:42 EDT From: "E. Allen Smith" Subject: Re: Archiving To: sbarber@echonyc.com Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-id: <01ID0FTXSTQCAEL9Q6@mbcl.rutgers.edu> X-Envelope-to: list-managers@greatcircle.com X-VMS-To: IN%"sbarber@echonyc.com" X-VMS-Cc: IN%"list-managers@greatcircle.com" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk From: IN%"sbarber@echonyc.com" "Steve Barber" 14-DEC-1996 09:11:52.12 >So far, unless I've missed something big, he's stated over and over >again, and very publicly, that the archives he's putting together are >reserved for historical and scholarly purposes. Umm... this is the stated purpose... but so long as it's openly available on the net, it is effectively available for other purposes than these. The feds won't let you get away with just a warning label vs non-US-citizens for cryptography programs on the net (unfortunately); I would think the same principle would apply here. There's also the point about a mailing list that charges, directly or indirectly (e.g., for their own archive's use or via ads on the list or on their own archive). Scholarly use doesn't include sufficient use to be able to completely remove commercial value, unless I completely misunderstand copyright law. Please inform me if so... there's a lot of material (chiefly programs) that I'd have free access to if that was the case. -Allen From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 21:42:12 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA20692 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 21:27:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA20683 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 21:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mne.ifi.uio.no (1232@mne.ifi.uio.no [129.240.65.76]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id ; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 06:26:30 +0100 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by mne.ifi.uio.no ; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 06:26:28 +0100 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 06:26:28 +0100 Message-Id: <199612150526.1304.mne.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: sbarber@echonyc.com CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <199612141354.IAA29631@echonyc.com> (message from Steve Barber on Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:54:14 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: Archiving Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Steve Barber] | It's interesting to note that Mr. Kahle is aware of the legal | uncertainties of the fair use claim, and has decided to put his | money where his mouth is and proceed anyway. Those who disagree | with his legal interpretations ought to quit flaming and put their | money where their mouths are and sue him over this if they feel so | strongly. Otherwise, please spare us your flaccid indignation. Sometimes I'm glad I live on this side of the Atlantic. It takes money to get justice, eh? Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 14 22:53:44 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA22889 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:52:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom13.netcom.com (netcom13.netcom.com [192.100.81.125]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id WAA22882 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:52:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom13.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id GAA09383; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 06:52:08 GMT Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 06:52:07 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom13 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: 20 flavours of the same list. Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk All: I'll be taking over a mailing list effective 1 January that has around 500 people on it. Moderated, with one message per week. Situation: This is twenty different mailing lists, whose only difference is in the graphic format that the recipients are sent. << TIFF, GIF, PNG, etc >> Currently the list is manually maintained, including subscribe, unsubscribe requests, etc. I'd like to have it all automated, so all I have to do, is send the message, with the appropriate graphic to each list. Questions: #1: How do I set up the lists, so that somebody won't subscribe to all twenty, thinking that they are different lists? IE: Subscribe to HWA-GIFF only, and not HWA-GIFF, HWA-JPEG, HWA-TIFF, HWA-PNG etc thinking that each of them is a different list. I don't really object to people subscribing to all the different lists --- except I forsee complaints about them being the same. #2: Does anybody have a good suggestion as to what mailing list software I should use? Or at least try out? Send responses to me, and if there are any requests, I'll post a synopsis to list-managers. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com #1/usr/bin/perl -w015112pi.bak & that is supposed to be readable code in a language designed for clear reading????? From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 15 14:08:43 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA19528 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:02:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from taz.hyperreal.com (taz.hyperreal.com [204.152.144.36]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA19521 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:02:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.3/V2.0) with SMTP id OAA01987; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:01:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:01:43 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Behlendorf To: Paul Graham cc: "E. Allen Smith" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Edited Edupage, 10 December 1996 In-Reply-To: <19961212174617.29058.qmail@urth.acsu.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk No, sounds like they're reinventing NNTP. Brian On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Paul Graham wrote: > they're re-inventing multiple rcpt messages or distribute? > > -------- In reply to: > >CONTROLLING TRAFFIC ON THE NET > >Cisco Systems, along with Sun Microsystems, Informix Corp., Netcom Online > >Communication Services and others, is backing technology developed by Tibco > >Inc. that is designed to ease data gridlock on the Internet. Tibco's > --------------------- > -- > paul > > --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@hyperreal.com http://www.apache.org http://www.organic.com/jobs From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 15 15:09:13 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA23599 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 15:02:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from burnout.cts.com (burnout.cts.com [204.216.216.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA23568 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 15:02:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from donews.cts.com (root@donews.cts.com [192.188.72.21]) by burnout.cts.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA00609 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 15:01:55 -0800 Received: from fatcity.com by donews.cts.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vZPZ8-00001QC; Sun, 15 Dec 96 15:01 PST Received: by fatcity.com (Wildcat) id 14288W Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:17:56 GMT From: bruceb@fatcity.com (Bruce Bergman) Subject: 20 flavours of the same list. Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:17:56 GMT Message-Id: <850659476@fatcity.com> Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -> #2: Does anybody have a good suggestion as to what mailing list -> software I should use? Or at least try out? -> Send responses to me, and if there are any requests, I'll -> post a synopsis to list-managers. *groan* Not again! <> We just went over this with probably 100-200 messages. Might try looking in the archive first -- it'll save us all another flame war. thanks, bruce From list-managers-owner Sun Dec 15 21:24:00 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA08175 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 21:17:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.redshift.com (redshift.com [165.227.94.16]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id VAA08168; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 21:17:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from tames (red112.redshift.com [165.227.94.112]) by mail.redshift.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with SMTP id VAA07810; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 21:17:02 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961215211429.006c0f44@hwy1bigsur.com> X-Sender: ko6xl@hwy1bigsur.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 21:17:09 -0800 To: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM From: Tim Ames Subject: majordomo configuration problem Cc: majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm running a closed list under majordomo 1.93 and I am having problems with stopping the administrative requests from being posted to the list. In the config file I have administrativa = yes and people still send messages to the list and instead of coming to me as list owner at the approval address, they are posted to the list. I have it set up as a closed list. The commercial provider that I'm dealing with is unable to deal with the problem or hasn't dealt with it yet. What can I tell them to do on their end to keep the subscribe and unsubscribe messages from going to the list? Anybody can send a message to the list and it appears on the list whether they are a member or not. Is this a glitch in the majordomo software, or have they configured it wrong? If anybody can email me with specifics to tell my commercial provider, I would appreciate it, or maybe you could point me to the place to find an answer. TIA Tim Ames tames@hwy1bigsur.com Big Sur, CA From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 16 02:38:38 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id CAA25298 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:31:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from alcatel.fr (mail.alcatel.fr [194.133.58.131]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id CAA25291 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:31:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from alcatel.fr (gatekeeper-ssn.alcatel.fr [155.132.180.244]) by mailgate.alcatel.fr (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA08223 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:36:03 +0100 Received: from ahqh01.ahqps.alcatel.fr (ahqh01.ahqps.alcatel.fr [155.132.120.40]) by nsfhh5.alcatel.fr (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA09364 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:31:16 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199612161031.LAA09364@nsfhh5.alcatel.fr> Received: from ahqp03 (ahqp31.ahqps.alcatel.fr) by ahqh01.ahqps.alcatel.fr with SMTP (1.40.112.4/16.2) id AA281151885; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:24:45 +0100 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jean-Francois Bonhomme" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:28:27 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: suscribe X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk suscribe bonhomme@ahqps.alcatel.fr Snail Mail: Alcatel Telecom. 33 rue Emeriau 75015 Paris. France Voice: (33) 01 40 58 51 44 Fax: (33)01 40 58 59 02 Any opinions expressed are mine only and not necessarly those of any other entity. From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 17 13:54:28 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA14176 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:42:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from archive.org (was.archive.org [206.14.154.180]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA14090 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from brewster.archive.org by archive.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA19961; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:41:53 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961217133408.00a5bc34@mail.archive.org> X-Sender: brewster@mail.archive.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:35:55 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Brewster Kahle Subject: dead horse Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:54:14 -0500 (EST) >From: Steve Barber >Subject: Archiving > >Folks -- > >I think when you vilify Brewster Kahle, you are going after the wrong >person. In about twenty years, all of us -- except for the usual >mean-spirited cranks -- are going to be ecstatic that the archives >he's been instigating exist at all. Losing the history of the Internet >would be a bad thing. > >So far, unless I've missed something big, he's stated over and over >again, and very publicly, that the archives he's putting together are >reserved for historical and scholarly purposes. Thank you Steve, for your measured comments. I would like to be clear on what we are doing. For mailing lists, if they are donated, we will keep the bits from decaying and offer for scholarly use (unless we don't think it is right to for legal or social reasons). Mailing lists fall into a zone that is tricky for all the reasons pointed out on this list. For web contents, we hope to make useful services as well as keep the bits from decaying. Tricky, but different, issues live in that area as well. The issue of this debate has been on the mailing list side, and I just wanted to make sure people understood what we are doing. (there was a similar discussion on the robots mailing list a couple of months ago about the web side). -brewster From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 17 16:38:40 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA29603 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 16:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom10.netcom.com (netcom10.netcom.com [192.100.81.120]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA29593 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 16:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom10.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id RAA18964; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 17:24:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 17:24:32 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom10 To: List Managers List Subject: Possible Spam heads up Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The following address... ISINFO@EMAILPROMO.COM Subbed through many, possibly all, lists on Netcom. Looks pretty suspicious. Don't know if the next message was a "who" (Netcom's Majordomo STILL allows open WHOs). FYI, last week in my column, I added a major anti-spam (and chain mail and "Virus Warning") rant to my column as a long author's note. It's generated a LOT of positive comment. If you're interested in getting a copy of it, Databack.com has donated an autoresponder for a stand-alone version of the rant (i.e., not a copy of my column): hit nospam@mailback.com for a copy. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 17 22:38:39 1996 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA20137 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:26:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from outlawnet.com (outlawnet.com [204.245.248.202]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id WAA20130 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:26:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.245.248.235] (liv11.outlawnet.com [204.245.248.235]) by outlawnet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA20731 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:26:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:26:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: garyb@outlawnet.com (Gary Bickford) Subject: Stripping mail-list footers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Let's assume that my list adds a nice footer to every message going out from the list. Has anyone come up with a handy way to strip this back off before archiving or digesting?? They're also generally still hanging on the end of replies to li