On Fri, 29 Jan 1993 16:03:30 +0100 Eric Thomas said:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1993 09:51:29 EST Nick Laflamme <NLAFLAMM@IRISHVMA> said:
>
>>Can someone  refresh my memory  on how LISTSERV bunches  recipients into
>>notes going  to MAILER and then  onto the rest  of the world? I  know it
>>tries  to bundle  as many  users as  it can  into the  same note,  but I
>>thought under  some conditions it  limited the number of  recipients per
>>note to  five, sending  multiple copies of  a note to  the same  node if
>>necessary rather than sending to more than five users at a time.
>
>I have decided to change this in  the next release to never put more than
>one address  in the 'To:' field  because it generates just  too much user
>confusion and questions to me.
 
Gee, that's too bad; I liked it when it was listing five recipients in
the "To:" field; it sure beat "Multiple recipients of..." although I
understand the reasons for the latter.
 
>>Right  now,  IRISHVMA  has  a  couple of  local  lists  with  about  100
>>recipients on  nd.edu. It  looks like  it's trying  to pump  through one
>>message  to nd.edu  listing all  100  recipients, and  for some  reason,
>>(X)MAILER 2.10 is choking after 92 or so recipients consistently.
>
>Install LMail or go back to R2.08 until John fixes XMAILER.
 
For the record, I have not enabled Netdata use on IRISHVMA in either
LISTSERV or MAILER, nor have I updated DOMAIN NAMES or BITEARN NODES to
indicate that I have.
 
Are you saying, Eric, that the ability to say that mail to a node should be
delivered in sets of five recipients at a time is no longer there in 1.7e,
that I can't make LISTSERV behave the way it used to, even by twisting
LOCAL SYSVARS or Local= or Mail-via or some other method?  This loss of
flexibility would be truly missed if that's the case.
 
(Extra credit to anyone who can show me a diagram of the first sentence in
the previous paragraph!  :-) )
 
Since we're not even trying to exploit Netdata support, going back to 2.08
may be a reasonable option if I can find a clean copy with the appropriate
PTFs on it.  This will take time, surely more time than changing two list
definitions or LOCAL SYSVARS would take.
 
Going to LMAIL, while a distinct possibility, is not a trivial exercise and
would take much longer than regressing to 2.08 would take.  Maybe some day,
maybe even soon, but today, not for this reason.
 
I'm not looking for a fix to XMAILER 2.10 here, I'm looking for a
work-around using LISTSERV.  I'm sorry if my faith in LISTSERV and its
configurability is misplaced, and I won't bother you any more with this
problem, Eric.  (Which, come to think of it, is exactly why I sent this
question to a list, not privately to Eric, so someone else might answer and
leave Eric to the flamewar on FUTURE-L.  :-) )
 
Sigh,
Nick
 
* [log in to unmask]
* [log in to unmask]