On 10/27/07, Lloyd Kvam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Barry rejected that patch because he felt it was too complex which is > not a terribly good sign.
According to the commentary I saw, it was rejected mostly because they thought they were approaching release at the time. IOW, feature freeze. http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2003-April/015040.html I looked over the patch, and I think I understand the basic idea, and it doesn't seem *that* complex. Basically: A1. Option flag and corresponding UI to let users make their choice A2. System-wide and per-list options to control availability of A1 A3. Double each message, munging reply-to on one and not the other, and route to recipients based on A1 A4. In A1, notice when a list becomes all mungers or all not-mungers A5. Hook A3 into the mail processing pipeline, with a conditional based on A4 A6. Modify existing "munge entire list" feature to influenced by A4 The devil's in the details, of course. > How quickly do you want it completed? Our usual time frame for GNHLUG projects is "before the next ice age", but you don't have to hold yourself to that kind of high-pressure deadline. ;-) > Do you have any test platform/scenario in mind to avoid killing this list? Mailman hooks into the mail delivery pipeline by having the MTA alias certain addresses to various scripts. I think it should be possible to have a separate installation of Mailman on liberty (our server) for development/test purposes. If you want an account, let me know. > I assume progress reports would b of interest to our pysig group. And this list, and likely the entire Mailman community! :-) -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
