Show 27 quoted lines
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 09:25:25AM -0500, Michael Witten wrote:
> >>
> >> > Firstly, I presume that someone is electing to use this option, so it is
> >> > almost by definition not annoying for that person.
> >>
> >> Sure, obviously only people who enable it will be affected. I was
> >> thinking of it more in terms of group economics: how many people _will_
> >> enable it, because they think the payoff outweighs the annoyance.
> >
> > My ISP doesn't allow me to send more than 20 emails at once.
>
> Hmm, I first thought you meant 20 emails in a single smtp session, but it
> appears that we create a new instance of Net::SMTP for each piece of email
> so it really sounds like it is time based (N pieces of e-mail within M
> minutes).
>
> Perhaps --pause=N,M to say "Pause N seconds for every M messages", where
> Michael's --delay=N is just a shorthand for --pause=N,1 is what you want?
> That is, reset the counter to 0 at the beginning, increment it after
> sending each message, and when the counter is M and if you have more to
> send, you wait for N seconds and reset the counter to 0. Then when you
> have a series smaller than 20 you won't have to suffer from any artificial
> delay.
Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>