--On Monday, August 13, 2001 3:47 PM -0400 Charlie Summers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
It's not really "QED" because I was specifically addressing Charlie's
earlier statement:
> ...right now I see no reason to waste a
> bunch of bloated perl processes on every inbound mail
by pointing out that there is not a "bunch of ... processes" on every
inbound mail, but generally only one process per inbound mail. If you have
a lot of inbound messages (at least a lot of inbound HTML messages) you
will still have that many processes (unless you hack the coprocessor
daemon, as I also suggested in a sentence Charlie didn't quote), but not as
many as you'd have if there really were a "bunch" of processes per message.
> 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.
It's simple all right, but in a GENERAL world of topic-oriented mailing
lists whose earthly priorities lie somewhere other than the geek virtuosity
of their members, it can interfere with the list's mission. Suppose we
start a list to organize a big family reunion somewhere in 2002 - the
members drawn from relatives and loved ones young and old across the
country and maybe the world. Someone finally gets Great-Grandma, who
hasn't seen some of the kids in many years, an email account and she posts
her tentative, courtly, affectionate howdy and asks someone to bring a
quilt for the big old pine table. Not only would one have to be a
heartless S.O.B. to reject her posting with some smartass RTFM lingo or
essay-length techie workaround hoop she's supposed to jump through, it'd be
just plain dumb.
Similarly, a large popular list on some cultural topic, with hundreds or
thousands of members, has a dilemma. Does it perpetually expend 5-10% of
its management energy browbeating the ever-changing membership into
"playing computer" and hand-enforcing filetype correctness? Or does it
just take the plain text from all submissions and distribute it
automatically?
I think a list whose topic matter implicitly implies email technical savvy
(like this one?) has every right to ask that its posters master a filetype
convention. Most other lists would strike me as being better off without
such a requirement.
>> 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?
I guess not -- presuming that "not to invoke perl" is itself a sensible
primary goal for a list manager. Barring unusual hosting circumstances, I
would again say this is a skewed priority, but to each her/his own.
>> 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.
I am unaware of any mechanism that would prevent Charlie from suggesting
various things, as he has just done. The point I wish to make is that IN
GENERAL, "less processor-intensive, more poster-intensive" is not the very
best service a list manager can perform. I view us as being here to
facilitate, not to chivvy and/or banish people who have come to us to
discuss things they love. When I am given an automated tool that makes
this easier, I tend to embrace it, and to pass the word on to others when
appropriate. It doesn't really matter to me whether Charlie in particular
changes his mind - these postings are intended for, and read by, the whole
community, which then decides severally for itself what's best to do.
