Re: Repeated messages (was Re: Suggested improvement : Adjust SEQUENCES)

From: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Repeated messages (was Re: Suggested improvement : Adjust SEQUENCES)
Date: 2001-06-28 16:49:29
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.10.10106281246520.598-100000@spider.pilosoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> writes:
> > Actually he asked it a week ago (see Jun 22 timestamp in his email). The
> > list server keeps regurgitating old messages and resending them. This has
> > been the behavior for last 2-3 months, and its hella annoying. I thought
> > its just me, but apparently its not.
>
> I think what's been happening a lot lately is:
>
> 1. Someone sends a message to a list they're not subscribed to.
> majordomo puts it into Marc's "to approve" queue and sends back a
> note saying the message is being delayed for administrator approval.
>
> 2. Not wanting to wait, the someone subscribes to the target list and
> resends his message. Discussion ensues.
>
> 3. Some time later, Marc gets around to emptying the approval queue and
> allows the original version of the message to be posted.
>
> I agree it's annoying, but I'm not sure what can be done about it.
> Running the PG lists takes a lot of Marc's time already --- I don't
> think it's reasonable to expect him to check for duplications of this
> kind on top of everything else. (And no, I don't want to drop the
> non-subscriber restriction. The lists have been wonderfully spam-free
> lately, largely because of Marc's filters.)
>
> Anyone have an idea about an automatic solution that wouldn't take any
> extra admin time? Maybe, when someone subscribes, automatically drop
> any pending messages from that person in the approval queue? That'd
> eliminate this kind of duplication, but I'm not sure what the downside
> might be, or how much work it'd be to set up. (For "drop" read "return
> to sender", anyway...)

Maybe rather do it the other way around: When someone subscribes, if there
are any pending messages from the person, they should go through
immediately, as if it was approved by Marc.

-alex

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thalis A. Kalfigopoulos 2001-06-28 17:02:21 sort memory size
Previous Message Mitch Vincent 2001-06-28 16:43:46 Re: Re: useability of apache, PHP, Postgres for real business apps