At 1:53 PM -0400 8/13/01, Tom Neff is rumored to have typed:
> just one Perl process
> per inbound mail.
With bunches of inbound mail, there are bunches of perl processes, QED.
Which, I maintain, are inefficient and at this time unnecessary. If a poster
is not interested in posting plain text, my list doesn't run the post.
Simple, really.
> Alternatively, you can install the non-text-plain bounce filter as
> described, but route the bounces through demime, again only invoking it
> where needed.
I could, but then as people figured out that they didn't have to post
text, and that I would do the work for them, they would rely on it, and I
would end up inevitably invoking it for every message, anyway. Hardly
sensible if mny goal is not to invoke perl at all, eh? No, thank you, I will
continue to expect my posters to follow a couple of simple rules; no swearing
(family-level lists), no quoting entire digest issues, post in plain text,
you get the idea.
> I can tell you this, once it's installed, you simply forget about that
> otherwise annoying problem for the list in question.
I _have_ already forgotten about that "otherwise annoying problem," after
writing the bounce explaination I haven't worried about it one whit (please
recall that it was Ms. Dick who wondered about a plain-text test, not me, and
indeed I gently argued _against_ it since users would certainly screw it up
anyway were such a thing written). This costs me no perl processes at all,
with the added bonus that most of those people who can't (or won't) figure
out how to send text are also those who would be caught by the
once-unnecessary over-quote filters when posting their top-quoted, "Me, too!"
messages anyway. I choose not to lower the discussion level of my lists; I
certainly do NOT recommend that for anyone more interested in quantity than
quality. (So far, on my largest list, I have had one person unsubscribe in a
huff because I wouldn't accept his ransome notes. Frankly, neither I nor the
list have missed his perls of wisdom.)
> Some of us can rail against the tide if we want,
I'm sorry...did I "rail" against anything, other than invoking perl when
it simply isn't necessary? Ok, ok, maybe about AOL performing too-frequent
relay checks on my server, but then I'm kinda ticked off at WebTV for the
same thing. (Hey, I use perl for a lot of things, when it's the correct tool
for the job, or I'm _really_ lazy and it's a once-and-done. I just accept
that it takes up a whole lot of resources, and choose not to waste the
memory, cycles, et al on all of the email coming into my lists.)
> but others of us just want
> to get on with running our lists.
Which is exactly what I have done. I have simply chosen a different, less
processor-intensive, more poster-intensive, route than you have. Hey, I know
a lot of people who like majordomo, but I certainly wouldn't use it - just
different tastes. I'm _not_ trying to convince you otherwise, please enjoy
using demime...I would simply suggest you not try to convince me that demime
is yet a necessary evil, either, and allow me to suggest that alternative
point of view to other list managers/moderators.
Charlie
