On 03/09/2011 02:07 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hello, > > Mailman has not been chosen mainly out of two reasons: > > 1. Moderation via e-mail is not comfortable. It especially requires one > password shared among all moderators, which is inconvenient. > > 2. Although virtual domains are supported, the list name can only exist > once per Mailman installation. That means, disc...@de.libreoffice.org > and disc...@it.libreoffice.org could not exist. It rather would have to > be de-disc...@de.libreoffice.org and it-disc...@it.libreoffice.org. In > addition, managing virtual domain names is a bit more complicated in > Mailman compared to mlmmj.
No idea & no real preference other than the ablity for the user to login and modify their profile settings & subscribe/unsubscribe. That said I find it hard to believe that you couldn't have mailman accounts for each list. Ubuntu have many: https://lists.ubuntu.com/ all of which are mailmain based. Sample: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel etc. > > I agree that Mailman provides a lot of other great features that would > come in handy and would have saved us a lot of time, but the above two > limitations are real tough to deal with. Then my recommendation is to find something else, as the inability of the user to manager their list settings is a problem. > > I also agree that mlmmj has some drawbacks, but basically, it does it > job very well. It doesn't if it doesn't allow the user to modify their mail list preferences & settings, and/or unsubscribe/subscribe without jumping through hoops. > To my understanding, many complaints would have either > occured with other lists as well -- like some people want attachments, > others don't, the next ones love forums, others don't -- and other > things are not bugs in mlmmj itself. None of my comments regard attachments & I think that you are being a bit obtuse & silly here. > For some configurations, Google > Mail seems to omit the "+" in the addresses, however, the + is supported > by RFC, so it's clearly a bug at Google that affects us. Other people > complained about not being able to receive e-mail -- most of the time, > it has been a few French providers blocking the mails without any > reason, and, again, in violation of the RFC, not even answering to > e-mails when the postmaster is mailed. Features like "mark moderated > messages" are really desirable, but they are not supported by any other > mailing list system, IIRC, so we would have to implement that ourselves > anyways. And that is relevent to my questions how? > > And, what I also see, people simply cannot read. They send email to the > help alias, but do not understand what to do. That would have occured > with Mailman as well, and I guess people would have even be more > confused by the web interface and the password they need. Perhaps it is because by the time the reach point of unsubscribing to the list(s) that they don't want to read? Don't know, but if the unsubscribe/subscribe information were posted on the website mail list area maybe they could instead be referred to that instead of some special email? > > There are a few drawbacks that will be solved with a newer mlmmj release > we plan to roll out soon, like the cut-off moderation messages. How about tagging moderated messages so that subscribed users know that the post is from a unsubscribed poster and has been forwarded by a moderator? It's rather simple: just as a [Moderated] tag to the subject of the message. > > We also plan to provide an administrative interface, where list owners > can edit some settings and (un)subscribe people. I agree that a lack of > this is really ugly. However, it needs time and resources, so if anyone > volunteers to code, let us know. :-) > > NoOp wrote on 2011-03-09 04.05: > >> 1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks >> would have learned from the OOo list history. > > This is an endless discussion. Ask five people what they prefer, and you > get seven replies. I am fine with both, but IMHO, the majority of list > moderators wanted unsubscribed posts to be possible. Then if the mandate is to allow unsubscribed posts, *please* identify the post as such with a [Moderated] tag in the subject. As you may/or may not have witnessed on the OOo list over the past 5 years or so, this issue has been a subject of contention that raises it's ugly head at least once a month. The general consensus was to allow unsubscribed posters; the key problem was/is that there was/is no easy way to know if the post came from such. So folks send off a reply only to be told later that the time they took to respond fell on deaf ears because the OP was from someone not subscribed to the list. They then have to decide whether they wish to reforward their response to the Unsub, or just move on. Note: it seems that I've fallen into this category on the OOo list; after 5 years of posts, I'm suddenly no longer subscribed, nor can I comment on OOo bug reports any longer unless I create a new username/password... but that's another story that doesn't apply to this list. > >> 2. Why are multiple moderators necessary? If it's to get some poor soul >> to sort& reject spam, then there are automated tools to do that instead. > > Most spam is filtered out already. There are not multiple moderators > necessary, it's just convenient. Technically, one is enough. OK. > >> 3. Why are we getting posts on the user& other lists using >> Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful: >> http://mlmmj.org/ >> that the user can't unsubscribe, or can't set nomail? > > Might be related to the Google problem. In addition, Google archives > one's own e-mails without putting them into the inbox first, which > confuses some more poeple. Why is Google even an issue, or brought up? I don't understand the comment. I see users on the user list that have no relation to gmail or Google. So something else must be broken in the process. > >> 4. Why is it necesary to send an email for unsubscribe instructions? > > That's indeed a limitation for mlmmj -- unsubscription for the digest > version of the lists are different than to those for the non-digest. I > see no reason for a digest, but lots of users demanded it, so enabled > it. It usually leads to broken threads, but then, you can't make > everyone happy... :-) Is it a limitation for mlmmj, or can the instructions that are received in the email be posted on the website? > >> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@libreoffice.org >> etc at all? Hello... is this some type of secret handshake that takes >> place to get off of the users list? > > No. But send an e-mail and *READ*. It's explained in clear words, I > guess. :-) I don't dare. Can you post the instructions/response here? >> What seems to be the problem with simply posting the unsubscribe >> information on the website and at the bottom of each post? Such as: >> ==== >> To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to >> discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org > > That does not work for digests. I received a lot of mails from digest > users unable to unsubscribe. > >> So why the requirement to send and ask for help? Is it because Mlmmj — >> Mailing List Management Made Joyful may not be so resilient/secure >> overall? Does the<listname>+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org not work >> any longer? > > It does, but not for digests. Indeed, this *is* a serious drawback that > annoys me, but then, I don't have the resources nor the knowledge to fix > it. :/ Nor do I. But obviouly someone with mlmmj experience helped to decide/setup the list(s). Can we get them to assist? Gary ... Note to Christian Lohmaier regarding your comments in this thread: I fail to understand why you enjoy calling people "stupid" and "ignorant". I see that you made one post on the OOo user list back in 2005: Subject: Re: Ergebnis der DE Co-Lead Wahl (and of course I know about your posts on the OOo releases list), so it is apparent that you've never spent time nor participated on the OOo user list. Your comment(s) are both offensive and display ignorance of the issues. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
