From: IN%"ravage @
com" "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 11:59:08.20
>> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:18:46 -0600 (CST)
>> From: ichudov @
>> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
>> John Gilmore wrote:
>> > A pentium is definitely up to this task. I've been running it the
>> > whole time on a slower 40MB SPARCstation-2 (that also runs netnews and
>> > general computing). Give it a big /var/spool partition (mine is 60MB)
>> > because every message will sit in the queue for days (*somebody* on
>> > the list will have an unreachable name server or MX server until the
>> > msg times out). Give it lots of RAM and paging space, since each
>> > sendmail process takes about 2MB virtual, 1.4MB physical, and you will
>> > have dozens running at the same time.
>My approach to this problem has been to use a 1G drive and mount the entire
>file system on it. Swap and MS-Dos each get their own partitions. This
>allows the use of the entire drive as a buffer. I am in the process of
>adding another 1G in approx. two weeks with the intent of moving /home off
>the main drive. This not only gives the system more space but the users as
>well. I set swap to 4x main ram. I use Linux and have it as one giant
>partition even though suggested is blocks of 16M, works for me (YMMV). Would
>be minor to monitor df and alarm when it gets to 200M or something.
>I must admit however that I am looking at a faster mbrd. and a bigger hard
>drive in the immediate future to make up for the extra load I expect. Had
>not really planned on the remailer project however...
>> > You'll need a BIG mailbox for the bounce messages, and someone (or
>> > some unwritten software) to scan it every day or two and delete the
>> > lusers whose mailboxes are full or who dumped their account without
>> > unsubscribing. The bounce mailbox on toad gets between 1 and 4MB of
>> > email a day; more when the list is under attack.
>How about dumping the bounces to /dev/null? I shure don't care if some
>bozo's (other than mine that is) mailbox goes away.
Umm... because you'll eventually accumulate _lots_ of addresses
that don't work, which will slow things down tremendously in sending
>> > The real issue is how willing you are to put your own time into
>> > dealing with problems. Not only do things go wrong by themselves, but
>> > there are malicious assholes in the world who will deliberately make
>> > trouble for you just because they like to. Spending a day or two
>> > cleaning up the mess is just part of the job. Check your level of
>> > committment two or three times before taking on the task -- so you
>> > won't end up getting disgusted after a month or two and putting the
>> > list's existence into crisis again. It's not a "set it up and forget
>> > it" kind of operation.
>I can verify this. If I was not already having to deal with these problem
>as a current mailing list operator I certainly would not take on the
>job. It is one of the reasons I STRONGLY suggest anyone serious about this
>should use the resources to make money as well. Anyone capable of setting up
>and operating such a remailer system is at least capable of basic skills.
Well, loki @
net has made the offer to host the entire
list... and Lance is certainly making money at it. While this would have
some problems in comparison with the distributed list idea (namely more of
a choke point), it would decidedly help.
>> Another suggestion may be to set sendmail expire option to one day
>> instead of five so that messages that cannot be delivered would bounce
>> faster and not clog the queue.
>I like this idea very much. Myself I would set it for like 4 hours or so and
>if it couldn't be delivered then bye bye. Another motivation for selective
>sites to operate as archives without themselves being remailers.
>Another issue related to this is at what point to unsubscribe accounts. It
>seems to me that if the address times out some number of times it should be
>Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway?