From: Mark Krell <markk@randomc.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:56:30 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970212235229.005742d8@randomc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:22 EDT
>From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
>To: ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com
>Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com
>Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
>Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
>
>From:	IN%"ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com"  "Jim Choate" 12-FEB-1997 11:59:08.20
>
>>> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:18:46 -0600 (CST)
>>> From: ichudov@algebra.com
>>> 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
>mail out?
>
>>> > 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@cyberpass.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
>>deleted.
>
>>Is anyone interested in acting as a mail-to-news gateway?
>
>
>