Stephen Writes: >The odds that this happens is quite small unless you have a humongous >list. Furthermore, the probability that the mail will go through this >time if the account has disabled due to bouncing is presumably way >less than 1. So my first-order response is this is a non-problem. > >Note that you have basically the same problem if the Address's timer >expires a few seconds after the send_warnings process finishes.
I understand your point. Stephen writes: >My second-order response is if you still care given that this is >rarely going to happen, and even more rarely will it generate a >message that reaches the user who reactivates the subscription, you >can arrange to have an index on the Addresses (or a separate queue) >which has the earliest timer first, and then process the Addresses in >that order. You'll still have the same problem if the timer expires a >few picoseconds after you start processing the particular address. :-) >Basically the way to deal with this is to adjust the >bounce_you_are_disabled_warnings_interval. This looks fine as of now but I do not know exactly how long or how it will implement, also creating a new runner is also very resource-consuming so I think I will be stick to straightforward implementation as of now. I basically did not realize the type of organizations using `Mailman` ( especially if they have `very large size` Mailing List or not so I presumed this problem's existence ). I suggest we can actually see the feedback of customers regarding problems arising in this area and depending upon that we can choose to modify/not-modify this. If we choose to modify it, maybe we can integrate it some of next year's GSoC project. Stephen writes: >What about it? This is even more unlikely, and I assume that >process_bounces will have a read-write lock that prevents reading (and >writing) while it's writing, while send_warnings will have a read lock >that prevents writing while it's reading. I think all of the >databases we support have such locks. I do not understand this part, `send_warnings` has to increment the `bounce_you_are_disabled_warnings` of the `Address` and the `process_bounce` will have to set the `processed` attribute of `BounceEvent` after completely processing that entry to True and save it again. Both of them have to write after reading a single entry so I do understand the reason of the lock. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list -- mailman-developers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-developers-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-developers.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: https://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: https://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
