On Sun, 19 Nov 1995 22:12:13 EST Roger Fajman <[log in to unmask]> said:
 
>> Why don't you take a look at  your console logs and see where the bulk
>> of the jobs are coming from :-)
>
>I took a look  at one log file that I happened to  have handy and didn't
>see why a reasonable limit would be a problem.
 
There  should  be  a  lot  of requests  coming  from  LISTSERV@XYZ,  from
NETNEWS@AUVM,  and  possibly  from   local  addresses  (either  users  or
servers). For instance one site has an alert list which receives a lot of
mail  from various  DVMs. Another  site has  a setup  where a  phone book
server updates lists to keep them in synch with the campus phone book.
 
>If you  are saying  that someone  should be  manually scanning  the logs
>every day to check for loops,
 
No, I'm saying that you should have  a program to monitor the size of the
LISTSERV queue given  the speed of your machine. And  not just because of
the possibility of loops :-)
 
>> This is  a separate problem that  calls for a different  solution. For
>> what it's worth, most of these people send a small number of jobs with
>> a large number of requests each.
>
>Even the ones who can't supply an address that can be replied to?
 
People who collect addresses a la  IAF certainly use a working address so
they can receive the info they need.
 
>At  the time  we figured  out the  problem, there  were 4-5000  files in
>Mailer's reader. Something like 4000 of  those were due to the loop. Due
>to the lack of better tools, Bruce purged the ones whose sizes indicated
>they were  part of the  loop (4 different  sizes, if memory  serves). Of
>course, we most likely purged some  legitimate mnessages too, but we had
>no other reasonable choice.
 
I'm sorry that you've had to purge all these messages, but let's face it,
on a PC the  impact of letting these 4000 messages  go through would have
been minimal.  It would probably  have taken all  of 10 minutes  to input
them to the SMTP queue. If I could wave a magic wand to make this problem
not happen, I would, but I can't.
 
>A limit of  100 or 200 would have  caught the problem in time  for us, I
>think.
 
Yes, a  limit of 100 or  200 would have  caught this problem for  you. It
would  also have  caused  a number  of other  problems  for other  people
(byebye news gateway) and then  it wouldn't necessarily have caught other
loops. Making  the INFO change  incidentally would also have  caught this
problem for you.
 
  Eric