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]