[Dovecot] ATTN: David Miller Re: Config review (2.0.5)

[Karsten Bräckelmann]

On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 17:57 -0400, Jerrale G wrote:
> >  On 10/7/2010 8:16 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:

> > >    fts = squat
> >
> > I'm probably talking out of the wrong hole again - but have you tried 
> > removing squat from your plugin list to see if it makes a difference?
> Daniel Miller,
> 
> Please do not get all defensive when someone asks why they're having 
> performance issues. You act like he said "Because of dovecot, i'm having 
> POP3 or IMAP performance problems". He only said he noticed a change 
> since going to 2.0.5. You could have suggested to try disabling all the 
> plugins and then enabling each one until he notices a huge performance 
> decrease, using whatever he was using to benchmark, instead of 
> ignorantly implying he should have already known to do so.

I don't think he got all defensive, I don't believe he implied anything,
and I don't think his reply was in any wrong. As I understand it, it was
a gut feeling of his, and turned out to be the issue indeed. (As
confirmed a while ago.)

Granted, I mostly lurk here only, and deleted most of this thread
already, but from memory...

Jerrale, dude, you got all defensive. I don't know who is the author of
the squat fts, and I am too lazy to look it up. But unless you are, I
don't really understand your screaming ATTN attribution on-list in the
first place.


Anyway, I don't feel like a flame war. I will try not to contribute to
this thread any further. However, David, err, Daniel -- don't feel bad.
I did not understand your comment offensive in any way, and I believe
the guys originally involved did neither.

This was a strange (sub)thread to read indeed. Back to my recording.


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0. at ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}