jesse at fsck
Jul 14, 2000, 8:24 AM
Post #5 of 5
*nod* I can buy that.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 05:21:41PM +0200, Tobias Brox wrote:
> > If a regular user submits two, ten or five hundred tickets in a week,
> > they should get two, ten or five hundred receipts. I agree that we
> > need better bounce control, but vacation-style squelching wouldn't work.
> I think our viewpoints at the autoreplies are a bit different - for us,
> the autoreply is just a bit of "early information" about the request
> handling. If we're backlogged so it might take more than a week getting
> back to the user, he should get an autoreply stating that it might take
> some time and eventually a list of other resources it's possible to find
> help. In this context, one autoreply a week is sufficient, regardless how
> many tickets the requestor issues.
> The other usage is like a notification or receipt that the ticket is
> actually received, with the ticket id (and eventually login information
> for new requestors). Then it _is_ important that one autoreply is
> sent out for every Ticket; but still I disagree that the one who issues
> 500 requests in i.e. one hour should get 500 autoreplies; by putting a
> limit somewhere, uncontrolled loops are efficiently stopped - such extreme
> amounts of requests can only be generated through loops or scripts, and if
> a script really needs to get those receipts ... well, there are
> My conclution is that there should be some limit, but that the limit must
> be configurable. For our usage, one autoreply pr week makes sense for
> most queues - for your usage, twenty replies in three minutes might make
> more sense.
> Spell checkers are for wimps
> (please send feedback on all typos)
jesse reed vincent --- root [at] eruditorum --- jesse [at] fsck
pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
And I'm told we do share some common rituals. Our "flame war" is apparently
held in person in their land and called "project meeting".
-Alan Cox [on "Suits"]