Re: [sysadmins] List moderation - need a break!

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, as Dave said earlier: everything about the email handling is
>> deeply integrated in the hub.org systems.
>
> No it isn't ... when the VPS was first setup, the agreement was that
> someone was going to setup spamassassin on it as a failback mechanism in
> case of any problems with the central spamassassin ... to the best of my
> knowledge, nobody has done that ...

That's not what we're talking about.

> Mail going out from Majordomo is set to go out three different MX
> servers so that they are spread across three postfix queues instead of
> bottlenecking into one ... there is nothing 'deeply integrated' there,
> its a performance thing that can be simply removed by doing:

Again, that's not what people are talking about. That is the one part of
the system that usually works. Even if it would've been nice to have the
thing documented, as has been requested for years, rather than to have
to go to the list archives.

It's the incoming mail, an the maia integration, that is the reason for
almost every single instance of our lists not working every now and
then. It may very well be that a community maintained system would have
the exact same issues, but it would have more people who could look at it.

> mj_shell -p XXXX configedit DEFAULT delivery_rules
>
> A command there there are several admins on the list capable of doing ...
>
> Even the spamassassin stuff is easily disabled by a simple modification
> to the postfix main.cf file to remove the content_filter and sqlgrey
> lines .. nothing "deeply integrated" there either, the processing is
> just offloaded to a different physical server ...
>
> If you don't *understand* how things are setup, don't jump to the
> falsely represented it as 'deeply integrated', as there is nothing
> integrated with anything Hub related, only stuff piggy backing off of,
> and those things are be very easily detached ...

Then why has this not happened since it has been requested for *years*?

But you're now saying you're Ok to decouple it? Rather than the usual
"never going to happen"? That's good news, indeed.

Is the same true for DNS?

//Magnus