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.@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