I usually look in ~mailman/qfiles/out and when I see "0", that's good enough
for me, although I know there may be some stragglers in the MTA mail queues.
But, MM is through with its part.
Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Stanley Chen :
> We have a list running 100,000+ email addre
As one stat, one of my lists of 10,000 is usually completed within 24 mins. I
usually drop all filter scans during that time, plus I use 20 separate mail
queues (sendmail) so too many don't pile up in a single queue and has to start
over delaying send-outs. These 2 things have affected my speed
As a new user, I have most everything tuned well, thanks a lot to this list and
of course the excellent program itself.
One thing I have yet to find a good way to do is the use of the inject
command for sending out a message from the command line. Nothing mysterious
about the command, but
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 9:12 AM -0700 2006-09-11, Jack
Stone wrote:
> In an effort to further tuneup/speedup the list deliveries (being choked
> again today), I have used the method below about an alternate smtp for
> mailman's use. However, I have yet t
In an effort to further tuneup/speedup the list deliveries (being choked again
today), I have used the method below about an alternate smtp for mailman's use.
However, I have yet to see any packets go through port 1313.
My posting lists are not huge, each under 1000.
Sockstats shows t
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 8:11 PM -0700 2006-09-06, Jack
Stone wrote:
> I'll have to check on the things you suggested, but just a quick
> response without more specifics, I've noticed it takes a long, long
> time for the announcement list to reach
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 6:45 AM -0700 2006-09-06, Jack
Stone wrote:
> Being a nuB to Mailman (but old hand with majordomo), I have noted that if
> a message is being processed out to one of the large customer announcement
> lists (10,000+) that it see
Folks:
Being a nuB to Mailman (but old hand with majordomo), I have noted that if a
message is being processed out to one of the large customer announcement lists
(10,000+) that it seems the separate discussion lists' deliveries slow down
substanially -- from minutes to hours! One member repor
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 7:06 PM -0700 2006-09-04, Jack
Stone wrote:
> I looked at FAQ 4.4 and the method described there using an external
> archiving tool like MHonArc with Mailman methinks is a monster [...]
It's not as clean as we would like, no. That
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 2:06 PM -0500 2006-09-04, Dan
Phillips wrote:
> Remember, what he's trying to do is to get pipermail NOT to obscure
> the addresses. This is completely unrelated to how the resulting
> files are used or what further processing is done on them.
--
Dan Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 4, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> The Mailman method of obscuring addresses has always worked as
> described, in all installations I have ever encountered or heard of.
Remember, what he's trying to do is to get pipermail NOT to obscure
Karl Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 07:04:37 -0700
(PDT)
Jack Stone wrote:
>
>
> I cannot modify the "post-prosessing script" because I
>use the program "Mhonarc" to generate the searchable
>version of my archives since Ma
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 6:06 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack
Stone wrote:
> I run a separate searchable archive where the whole address is munged
> with ""s, but now without the "@" regular format, the address is
> more exposed than befor
Jack Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack Stone wrote: Brad Knowles
wrote: At 11:36 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack Stone wrote:
Did the regen of the archives and NADA Just the same email format presented by
mailman archives:
amember at somewhere.com
Now what.
On the
Jack Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Brad Knowles
wrote: At 11:36 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack Stone wrote:
IMO, better yet would to modify your post-processing script so that
it understands both address formats, so that it doesn't matter how
this particular option is set.
--
B
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 11:36 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack
Stone wrote:
> So, why doesn't the change from YES to NO on the obscure not work??
Because you still need to regenerate the archives, which you
apparently did not do.
IMO, better yet would to mo
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 6:06 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack
Stone wrote:
> I run a separate searchable archive where the whole address is munged
> with ""s, but now without the "@" regular format, the address is
> more exposed than befor
In the admin, I set the the "obscure address" to NO, but addresses are still
shown as:
"amember at somewhere.com"
Setting from YES to NO had no effect. Radio button NO is still set.
I run a separate searchable archive where the whole address is munged with
""s, but now witho
18 matches
Mail list logo
