Sean Figgins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've hit the nail on the head. Is there any way that the NANOG mailing list can prevent such unwanted mail between two users? Actually, yes there is.
This is using a hammer to swat a fly. Not only is it not the right tool, but it's far less accurate. Please note that the makers of mailman, while providing this functionality, recommend against it. Me, too.
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2000-November/007794.html [snip description]
Possibly, yes, however I would not recommend it. Doing this would do more damage than the limited benefit. While I disagree with the way the list is setup, preferring the "reply-to" header to be used to keep the traffic on the list, the community seems to prefer it the way it is.
I'm on a couple of lists where the reply-to header is munged in just this way. I hate it. I much prefer the extra effort that says to send to the list, rather than constantly checking to make sure that a private message is not being sent to the list by accident.
[more snips]
I believe that the nanog list server is still using majordomo, and I am uncertain if it supports the type of configuration to provide for this type of feature. I'm sure other software, such as mailman, would provide for the feature. Again, it seems that it's working the way that the community wants to, and without a beneficent dictator in place to change the behavior, it's unlikely that it would be done.
Majordomo can be set to do this. I hope that nanog (and its attendant lists) are never set up this way. I have reasonable expertise in managing either style of list, and find pluses and minuses in each, but consider header munging to be a negative anywhere it's done. The one plus about mailman that I miss is having the ability to convert mime/rich text garbage into nice sensible plain text (and yes, I *know* it's possible to do that other ways). Feh. I'm rambling now.
Sean, not picking on you, but this touched a nerve. Out of control vacation (and other autoresponder) programs should be dealt with one at a time, as needed. There's already enough rules.
-- We should not be building surveillance technology into standards. Law enforcement was not supposed to be easy. Where it is easy, it's called a police state. -- Jeff Schiller
