nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
From: "Larry J. Blunk" <ljb () merit edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
----- Original Message -----
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:Looks like parts of the received like are still there, though butchered and mashed in (most likely in a non-RFC compliant manner) with the one added by 'bulk_maler v1.13' (great name for the mailer, btw, sets off my spammy sense something fierce).You seem to be new here. bulk_mailer was something used back in the day to workaround limitations in sendmail for those people operating majordomo (and those using smail etc). it broke the chunks into something that sendmail would then allocate multiple processes to. most other mail subsystems can handle the multiple-rcpts in different manners. while it may 'feel' spammy to you, it's certainly not. a simple google of "majordomo and bulk_mailer" should give you a good idea of what's going on. there were a lot of other mail systems that served to help integrate and interoperate back in the day, including qmailer, smail, etc that all attempted to replace sendmail, including providing the uucp interaction necessary for those behind dialup. either way, please try to keep the feedback off-list for now as we undergo this transition. It's hard to move a large list like this without trouble. I've been party to many such list moves in the past and they usually have all sorts of trouble. admins () nanog org is the right place for your feedback right now. - Jared
Feeling a bit of Déjà vu as I deployed bulk_mailer for the NANOG list back in November of 1996. It used sendmail+bulk_mailer for delivery until March of 1999 when we transitioned to Postfix. It was transitioned again in April 2008 to Exim and Mailman. Unfortunately, my memory is a bit hazy on whether there were any specific issues with bulk_mailer that caused the switch to Postfix. My main concern with the bulk_mailer code is that it hasn't been touched in over a decade -- ftp://cs.utk.edu/pub/moore/bulk_mailer I've have some concerns with AMS based on my experience with the IETF mailing list. It has had ongoing issues with out-of-sequence delivery. Based on the Received headers, it's seems pretty clear the re-ordering is occurring internal to the AMS servers. It appears they may be trying something different with the NANOG list as the IETF list does not employ bulk_mailer. -Larry
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward, (continued)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Tim Franklin (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward William Pitcock (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward jim deleskie (Jul 12)
- RE: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Chris Barlow (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Steve Feldman (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Ben Carleton (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Jay Ashworth (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Brielle Bruns (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Jared Mauch (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Brielle Bruns (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Larry J. Blunk (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Joel Jaeggli (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Larry J. Blunk (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward William Pitcock (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Tim Franklin (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Ben Carleton (Jul 12)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward James Cloos (Jul 13)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jul 13)
- Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Aftab Siddiqui (Jul 12)