Stuff running slooow

tom pointed it out to me a little while ago ... am looking into why, but
I'm also just finishing putting together a new server to speed things up
some more yet ...

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

Don't know if anyone else has noticed, but cvsweb is a bit slow right
now and mailing list response times have gotten really slow. Could we
use more machines or bandwidth?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we could
easily get donations to improve things.

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:39:23PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

tom pointed it out to me a little while ago ... am looking into why, but
I'm also just finishing putting together a new server to speed things up
some more yet ...

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

Don't know if anyone else has noticed, but cvsweb is a bit slow right
now and mailing list response times have gotten really slow. Could we
use more machines or bandwidth?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we
could easily get donations to improve things.

IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just move freebsd
VMs across, which is why it's only used as a web frontent and to run
planetpostgresql.org at the moment.

//Magnus

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:

Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we
could easily get donations to improve things.

IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just move freebsd
VMs across, which is why it's only used as a web frontent and to run
planetpostgresql.org at the moment.

If the OS it's running is a legitimate issue I can work on changing
that. By VMs do you mean jails?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:

Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect we
could easily get donations to improve things.

IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just move freebsd
VMs across, which is why it's only used as a web frontent and to run
planetpostgresql.org at the moment.

Sorry, itchy send-button...

For sending email, there are packages that allow a remote machine to
handle email sending duties. This would allow off-loading SMTP duties
from the box running the mailman web stuff.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect

we could

easily get donations to improve things.

IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth on the box
donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just

move freebsd

VMs across, which is why it's only used as a web frontent

and to run

planetpostgresql.org at the moment.

Sorry, itchy send-button...

For sending email, there are packages that allow a remote
machine to handle email sending duties. This would allow
off-loading SMTP duties from the box running the mailman web stuff.

I beleive this is already done. For example, your mail came to me
through flake.decibel.org.

//Magnus

Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect

we could

easily get donations to improve things.

IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth

on the box

donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just

move freebsd

VMs across, which is why it's only used as a web frontent

and to run

planetpostgresql.org at the moment.

Sorry, itchy send-button...

For sending email, there are packages that allow a remote

machine to

handle email sending duties. This would allow off-loading

SMTP duties

from the box running the mailman web stuff.

I beleive this is already done. For example, your mail came
to me through flake.decibel.org.

Eh. That would be me looking at the mail that didn't pass the listserver
:-)

Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails typicall pass through a box at
commandprompt.com, so the argument holds while the example was broken.

//Magnus

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mha@sollentuna.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:31 PM
To: Jim Nasby
Cc: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow

Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect

we could

easily get donations to improve things.

IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth

on the box

donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just

move freebsd

VMs across, which is why it's only used as a web frontent

and to run

planetpostgresql.org at the moment.

Sorry, itchy send-button...

For sending email, there are packages that allow a remote
machine to handle email sending duties. This would allow
off-loading SMTP duties from the box running the mailman web stuff.

I beleive this is already done. For example, your mail came to me
through flake.decibel.org.

//Magnus

Which is my machine at home, which is what I generally use for list traffic.

The actual mail-chain for list traffic is svr1.postgresql.org to svr2. Maybe svr2 is handling the bulk emailing already. The delay seems to be on svr1 in any case.

--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

-----Original Message-----
From: "Magnus Hagander"<mha@sollentuna.net>
Sent: 25/08/05 19:36:51
To: "Jim C. Nasby"<jnasby@pervasive.com>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier"<scrappy@postgresql.org>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow

Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails
typicall pass through a box at
commandprompt.com, so the argument
holds while the example was broken.

There are a few distribution servers, another of which is the Pervasive box.

/D

-----Unmodified Original Message-----

Well, if hardware or bandwidth becomes an issue I suspect

we could

easily get donations to improve things.

IIRC we have plenty of spare both hardware and bandwidth

on the box

donated by Pervasive. But it runs Linux so you can't just

move freebsd

VMs across, which is why it's only used as a web frontent

and to run

planetpostgresql.org at the moment.

Sorry, itchy send-button...

For sending email, there are packages that allow a remote

machine to

handle email sending duties. This would allow off-loading

SMTP duties

from the box running the mailman web stuff.

I beleive this is already done. For example, your mail came
to me through flake.decibel.org.

Eh. That would be me looking at the mail that didn't pass the listserver
:-)

Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails typicall pass through a box at
commandprompt.com, so the argument holds while the example was broken.

//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Eh. That would be me looking at the mail that didn't pass the listserver
:-)

Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails typicall pass through a box at
commandprompt.com, so the argument holds while the example was broken.

Well one thing I can tell you is that it definately appears as if the
mailing lists need help.

It seems to take a LONG time for a post to show up for any particular
person, when it should be almost instantaenous.

I know the problem is not on our end as I am watching messages being
relayed faster than I can read them but somewhere there is a bottleneck.

I have mentioned previously that I would really like to see the email
lists move to mailman (long list of reasons why but I don't want to
start a war).

The long and short is I have never understood why it takes so long for
posts to show up.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:07:32PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: "Magnus Hagander"<mha@sollentuna.net>
Sent: 25/08/05 19:36:51
To: "Jim C. Nasby"<jnasby@pervasive.com>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier"<scrappy@postgresql.org>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow

Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails
typicall pass through a box at
commandprompt.com, so the argument
holds while the example was broken.

There are a few distribution servers, another of which is the Pervasive box.

So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?

BTW, things are back to normal today...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:jnasby@pervasive.com]
Sent: 25 August 2005 21:24
To: Dave Page
Cc: mha@sollentuna.net; scrappy@postgresql.org;
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow

So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?

Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
spam (iirc).

Regards, Dave.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:

So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?

Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
spam (iirc).

Does it scan every single incomming email? It might make more sense to
have the mailing list software first validate that the email is from a
valid subscriber.

What exactly runs on svr1, since that's where the bottleneck was
yesterday?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:07:32PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: "Magnus Hagander"<mha@sollentuna.net>
Sent: 25/08/05 19:36:51
To: "Jim C. Nasby"<jnasby@pervasive.com>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier"<scrappy@postgresql.org>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org"<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow

Picking one that does, thouhg, my mails
typicall pass through a box at
commandprompt.com, so the argument
holds while the example was broken.

There are a few distribution servers, another of which is the Pervasive box.

So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?

BTW, things are back to normal today...

Yup, did a bunch of work on it last night ... identified some 'out of
whack' processes that were hogging a bit more CPU then they should, and
moved them ... its part of some ongoing work I've been doing to clean
things up ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

The long and short is I have never understood why it takes so long for
posts to show up.

I'm looking into that one right now ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:jnasby@pervasive.com]
Sent: 25 August 2005 21:46
To: Dave Page
Cc: mha@sollentuna.net; scrappy@postgresql.org;
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Stuff running slooow

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:

So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?

Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti

virus/anti

spam (iirc).

Does it scan every single incomming email? It might make more sense to
have the mailing list software first validate that the email is from a
valid subscriber.

What exactly runs on svr1, since that's where the bottleneck was
yesterday?

Marc can best answer those. Svr1 is not just the listserver though -
it's also developer.postgresql.org which releases and snapshots are
built on, developers keep their websites (and may also use for general
use) and the primary ftp site is built on.

Regards, Dave

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:26:25PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:

So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?

Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
spam (iirc).

Does it scan every single incomming email? It might make more sense to
have the mailing list software first validate that the email is from a
valid subscriber.

I have just about every anti- filter that I can find enabled on postfix
itself, but its postfix itself that does the content filtering, not the
mailing list software ... so thet anti-virus is hit before the mailing
list software even sees it ... we also have spamassassin running, and
filters in place to reject any messages that trigger that ...

As a couple of ppl have found out by becoming 'moderators' for the mailing
lists, there are *alot* of messages through the server that aren't list
subscribers, but are legit emails ...

The process for email right now is:

scan for virus -> analyze/tag for spam -> pass to majordomo

majordomo then checks the spam tags and disregards based on a set of
rules, and what is left either has to wait for moderator approval/reject
*or* send onto the list, depending on if someone is subscribed or not ...

If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

As a couple of ppl have found out by becoming 'moderators' for the
mailing lists, there are *alot* of messages through the server that
aren't list subscribers, but are legit emails ...

Perhaps that shouldn't be allowed? Would it help things if all
non-subscriber emails are just bounced / dropped immediately, before
anti-virus etc... Seems this would save a lot of CPU time and more
importantly people time reviewing potentially legit emails.

If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*

Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
sure most others do as well. :)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

As a couple of ppl have found out by becoming 'moderators' for the mailing
lists, there are *alot* of messages through the server that aren't list
subscribers, but are legit emails ...

Perhaps that shouldn't be allowed? Would it help things if all
non-subscriber emails are just bounced / dropped immediately, before
anti-virus etc... Seems this would save a lot of CPU time and more
importantly people time reviewing potentially legit emails.

Not sure how you would accomplish this, since postfix is what handles the
anti-virus/anti-spam processing, before the list software even sees it ...
and, since not all mail through that system is for the lists, you can't
just drop all messages not from subscribers ...

the issues, though, aren't with the anti-virus/anti-spam ... somehow, the
messages seem to be getting 'stuck' within the list software itself, which
is what I'm trying to trace through ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*

Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am sure
most others do as well. :)

Remembering back to the time I *oopsed* and approved all messages in the
moderator queue, and the # of ppl emailing me about getting a whack of
spam, I don't imagine everyone has such in place :)

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks
and just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*

Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
sure most others do as well. :)

Remembering back to the time I *oopsed* and approved all messages in the
moderator queue, and the # of ppl emailing me about getting a whack of
spam, I don't imagine everyone has such in place :)

O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
It would take some load off of the system and the moderaters.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 15:01:25 -0700,
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
It would take some load off of the system and the moderaters.

That makes the lists less usable for people asking questions.

Are messages from usenet still being gated to the lists? If so that will
also be affected by such a change.

"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:

So I take it the bottleneck is the box running the mailing list?

Usually that, or av.hub.org which does the centralised anti virus/anti
spam (iirc).

Yesterday's problem seemed to be av.hub.org; svr1 was pretty nearly idle
as far as I could tell. I don't have a login on av to see what
conditions were like there, though.

regards, tom lane

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Bruno Wolff III wrote:

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 15:01:25 -0700,
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
It would take some load off of the system and the moderaters.

That makes the lists less usable for people asking questions.

Are messages from usenet still being gated to the lists? If so that will
also be affected by such a change.

Two reasons why 'auto-bouncing' won't work ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 06:01:23PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

Yup, did a bunch of work on it last night ... identified some 'out of
whack' processes that were hogging a bit more CPU then they should, and
moved them ... its part of some ongoing work I've been doing to clean
things up ...

Hrm... the web interface at mail.postgresql.org is pretty slow right
now...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*

Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
sure most others do as well. :)

The archives would fill with junk. From skimming other projects'
archives, IMHO that is very undesirable.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"The important things in the world are problems with society that we don't
understand at all. The machines will become more complicated but they won't
be more complicated than the societies that run them." (Freeman Dyson)

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
It would take some load off of the system and the moderaters.

That won't do, as some other folks noted. But what I'd really like to
see is a hack that, when someone subscribes to a list, goes through the
moderator queue and auto-approves any pending messages from that
someone.

What we see way way too much of is the following sequence of events:

1. Newbie sends a question to a list.

2. Question goes into the moderator's queue because it's from a non
subscriber.

3. Newbie figures this out (maybe right away or maybe not), subscribes,
and reposts his question.

4. People answer.

5. Some while later (usually several days, which means that Marc is
badly overworked :-(), the original question gets approved and
we see a duplicate appearing on the list.

There is nothing optimal about this from the point of view of the
newbie, nor the moderator, nor the list membership (who have to be
able to recognize delayed duplicate questions when they see 'em).
Plus it clutters the archives.

An auto-approval mechanism would fix all this (though we'd probably
need to add something to the standard list-welcome message mentioning
that you shouldn't repeat any questions you already sent in). I have
no idea how hard it is to do, but it sure seems like it would make
things more pleasant all around.

regards, tom lane

I've forwarded this onto the Mj2 Developers ... it might even be doable
now, they've built a, at times, painfully configurable system ...

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

O.k. that is probably true, but Matt had a good suggestion. If you are
not subscribed it immediately bounces. I think that is a very good idea.
It would take some load off of the system and the moderaters.

That won't do, as some other folks noted. But what I'd really like to
see is a hack that, when someone subscribes to a list, goes through the
moderator queue and auto-approves any pending messages from that
someone.

What we see way way too much of is the following sequence of events:

1. Newbie sends a question to a list.

2. Question goes into the moderator's queue because it's from a non
subscriber.

3. Newbie figures this out (maybe right away or maybe not), subscribes,
and reposts his question.

4. People answer.

5. Some while later (usually several days, which means that Marc is
badly overworked :-(), the original question gets approved and
we see a duplicate appearing on the list.

There is nothing optimal about this from the point of view of the
newbie, nor the moderator, nor the list membership (who have to be
able to recognize delayed duplicate questions when they see 'em).
Plus it clutters the archives.

An auto-approval mechanism would fix all this (though we'd probably
need to add something to the standard list-welcome message mentioning
that you shouldn't repeat any questions you already sent in). I have
no idea how hard it is to do, but it sure seems like it would make
things more pleasant all around.

regards, tom lane

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Tom Lane wrote:

That won't do, as some other folks noted. But what I'd really like to
see is a hack that, when someone subscribes to a list, goes through the
moderator queue and auto-approves any pending messages from that
someone.

If it's possible, cool. What I have seen from other mailing lists (possibly
newer versions of the same software?) is a "Cancel message" link in the
e-mail telling about moderation status.

So one can cancel the message, subscribe to the list and send the message
again.

At least better than what we have now.

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

5. Some while later (usually several days, which means that Marc is
badly overworked :-(), the original question gets approved and
we see a duplicate appearing on the list.

The several days should be a thing of the past now. Most queues get
cleaned out at least once a day. The duplicate thing is a pain, but
I'd rather err on the side of having two messages than missing one
entirely.

An auto-approval mechanism would fix all this (though we'd probably
need to add something to the standard list-welcome message mentioning
that you shouldn't repeat any questions you already sent in). I have
no idea how hard it is to do, but it sure seems like it would make
things more pleasant all around.

Even just adding that text to the welcome message would help a lot
for the current system.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200508261048
https://www.biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEARECAAYFAkMPLI4ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsiqnwCeO+xpU///TTXxCqXt1MRWu2Im
TAkAoK6OliABug6B2Tej0ktSVA2JpDlA
=e0rZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org (Alvaro Herrera) writes:

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam checks and
just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*

Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I am
sure most others do as well. :)

The archives would fill with junk. From skimming other projects'
archives, IMHO that is very undesirable.

We'd discover ourselves inundated with questions about Dueling Banjos...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spiritual.html
"Parentheses? What parentheses? I haven't noticed any parentheses
since my first month of Lisp programming. I like to ask people who
complain about parentheses in Lisp if they are bothered by all the
spaces between words in a newspaper..."
-- Kenny Tilton <tilt@liii.com>

On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 11:42:04AM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:

alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org (Alvaro Herrera) writes:

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:45:02PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

If y'all would like, I can eliminate the anti-virus/anti-spam
checks and just let it all go through though ... *evil grin*

Would not bother me in the least. I have protective measures as I
am sure most others do as well. :)

The archives would fill with junk. From skimming other projects'
archives, IMHO that is very undesirable.

We'd discover ourselves inundated with questions about Dueling
Banjos...

This should explain it:

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~blagger/the_duel.html

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!