[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: H/W upgrade for lists ? (was: Re: Cum Hungry Chick creampie videos ready to dnolwoad)

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:52:24AM +1000, Matthew Palmer scribbled:
> > > And, naturally, you have hard numbers to back up your claim, for situations
> > > analogous to the Debian mailing lists.  Because it would be terrible to make
> > > sweeping statements like that with no evidence.
> >
> > You see, I _would_ have numbers if DSPAM ran on the d.o lists. I don't feel
> > like subscribing to all of them personally and testing that myself. But, as
> You could subscribe to a few of the biggies and run it like it was on
> murphy.
I am subscribed to quite a few of them, thanks.

> > unsupported my statement might be, yours is the same - you haven't tested it
> Statements I made:
> * "you have hard numbers to back up your claim" -- sarcasm, which you
> recognised.  I was making a very educated (and, as it turns out) entirely
> accurate statement.  No evidence required.
You certainly have a high opinion about yourself, I find it really amusing

> * "it would be terrible to make sweeping statements ... with no evidence" --
> might require some proof, but I think it stands fairly well on it's own, and
> as a basis of scientific endeavour.  If you'd really like a detailed
> treatise on why crapping on with no evidence isn't a good thing, please take
> a first year science course at college and try it.  Academics are much
> better at that sort of rant than me.
You are rich, really :). Now you're speaking like you knew me for years. You
are making a ton of assumptions and statements about my, whereas you don't
know me at all. How about that, sugar pops? Shouldn't you listen to your
words now?

> > either. So, the solution would be to actually give it a try (and yes, I'd
> > love to take part in configuring it for a test on l.d.o, but I doubt I would
> > get access to the lists config, so that point is moot) and see how bad/good
> Have you asked?  You'd be *amazed* at what you can do when you ask.
You'd be *amazed* how futile it might be around here. I just admitted that
I'm not a person anybody would trust with that matter - because practically
nobody around here knows me. I maintain few packages and keep low profile,
by choice and for reasons that are none of your business and I
_realistically_ evaluate my chances of getting involved in anything else
than what I'm doing for Debian now. They are moot, that's the fact.

> > it works for debian. It doesn't even have to run on l.d.o itself, the mail
> > could be reflected to a relatively idle machine to do the testing.
> That's going to be the hard part - finding a fairly idle machine in the
> Debian pool...
Did I say Debian? I didn't notice that, you're reading between the lines
(and in my mind) again. My thought was to configure one of the machines I
have access to for that purpose.

have fun, kid


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: