Bill Catambay wrote:
1. Mailman aliases not working (like in my case)
2. Unable to access my email, but have access to web (which is common
for those of us behind corporate firewalls)
3. My email is broken, but my internet it still working
However, even with these reasons, I wouldn't consider it a big deal,
especially if it's difficult to implement. After my list is working
again, I'll probably forget all about it. :)
Yes, but are list admins always mailman admins or have access to the
machine?
The only questions which seem relevant are:
1. Is this useful enough?
2. Does it fit with Mailman's vision?
3. How difficult is it to implement?
At 5:48 PM +0900 on 11/23/09, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Gadi Evron writes:
> crappy providers aside, do you think this might be a useful
> feature?
I think that, as Mark alludes to, this feature would be harder to
implement usefully than you'd think. It sounds easy, but remember, in
a very large share cases where it would be useful *your mail system is
already broken*. A trivial example: most of the cases where I've
wanted something like it, the host was crashed, and simply not
available. In other cases, it seems that Mailman is for some reason
unable to send mail; why would it be more able to send mail received
via HTTP than mail received by SMTP?
--
Gadi Evron,
g...@linuxbox.org.
Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
