Re: [Mailman-Users] how to arrange a list with 'affiliate' members
Thanks for your reply. This was a solution I considered, but as you point out, members of one list do not have an automatic right to post to a 'sub-list'. As the moderator, I really do not want the job of subscribing/unsubscribing people to the extra list. As for the Reply-To munging, you make some very valid points, and personally I am, in principle, on the non-munging side of the debate. However you seriously underestimate the technophobia of my members! These people are confused enough - many cannot even grasp the idea that you use 'Reply' to reply to *any* kind of email and, conversely, our archive is awash with replies that are actually new threads (presumably because they cannot operate their address book and therefore reply to an old post to save typing the list's address - despite then having to delete all the original message!) With the exception of myself and perhaps 2 other members, I believe they all actively hate everything to do with computers and only tolerate them because of what they can do. Not surprising really, when you learn that we are all hand-makers of furniture - so by definition have turned our backs on much that is technical. So despite my natural inclination, I really do think there is a place for Reply-To munging, and with clientele like mine I'm afraid I really can't budge on it! In desperation I am now working on a script which acts as a gate between the two lists. An address which aliases to this script will be subscribed to both lists, though only to one topic in 'discuss'. My task is to make sure that any one message can pass through the gate to the other list only once so that no loop could ever be established (even in the event of X-BeenThere headers being lost). Any tips on this project would of course be welcome. The principle seems pretty straightforward, but making it fool-proof is a bit harder. --- "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "Barnaby" == Barnaby Scott > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Barnaby> I am trying to configure a list or > group of lists to > Barnaby> exhibit the following behaviour, but > have been having > Barnaby> trouble: > > Barnaby> I run a list called 'discuss', which is > a discussion list > Barnaby> for members of our organisation. We > would also like to > Barnaby> invite a handful of people to be > 'affiliate' members, but > Barnaby> who would not have quite the same > experience of the list. > > Barnaby> We want these 'affiliate members' to be > able to post to > Barnaby> 'discuss', and any replies to their > posts to be > Barnaby> distributed to them. In addition we > would like regular > Barnaby> members to be able to insert a keyword > to indicate that > Barnaby> the conversation they are starting is > to include these > Barnaby> 'affiliate members'. But for all other > list traffic, they > Barnaby> would excluded. > > Why not just have two separate lists, and > automatically subscribe the > "discuss" members to the the "affiliate" list? No > keyword needed, > just address your post correctly. Reply-To will not > go to an "unsafe" > place (unless a discuss member decides to move a > thread from the > "affiliates" list to the "discuss" list, and forgets > to change the > address---but I don't see why this is more likely > than forgetting to > remove the [affiliate] tag). > > Since the discuss list is apparently closed (ie, > membership requires > moderator approval), this imposes a slight burden on > the moderator (I > don't think vanilla Mailman provides a facility > where subscribing to > one list subscribes you to a second list > automatically), but otherwise > is just what the doctor ordered AFAICS. > > Barnaby> The only other solution I could think > of was to have > Barnaby> another list - say 'open', of which > 'discuss' was a > Barnaby> member. This would allow control of who > was an affiliate > Barnaby> member, and would take care of inbound > posts to > Barnaby> 'discuss'. However, to allow replies > back to the > Barnaby> affiliate members would involve either: > > Barnaby> *Having the 'discuss's reply-to > UN-munged > > Yup, in this case Reply-To Munging Is Unquestionably > Harmful. > > Barnaby> (which I am against because we have > 100% non-technical > Barnaby> people, and no replies would ever reach > any list at all > Barnaby> if they had to
[Mailman-Users] lists that are members of each other - bad idea?
I posted a question a couple of days ago about a particular Mailman set-up I wanted to achieve, but have since thought it would be better to ask a simpler and more specific question: Does anyone know the consequences of setting up two lists which are members of each other? I don't want to do something which will cause an endless loop and bring down the wrath of my hosting company upon myself! Presumably the X-BeenThere header should come into play to avoid such an eventuality, but will it work in these circs? Or even if it does work, should one not do this sort of thing for other reasons? Thanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover -- Mailman-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Re: [Mailman-Users] lists that are members of each other - bad idea?
Kinda what I feared! Does anyone have any suggestions about my original query then (about 'affilate' members a couple of threads back)? Thanks --- Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 12:06 AM -0700 2004/05/10, Barnaby Scott wrote: > > > Does anyone know the consequences of setting up > two > > lists which are members of each other? > > I believe that would be very bad news. > > > Presumably the X-BeenThere header should come > into > > play to avoid such an eventuality, but will it > work in > > these circs? Or even if it does work, should one > not > > do this sort of thing for other reasons? > > The risk is that you will have set up a potentially > serious loop, > for which there is only one way to detect and stop > it before there is > a melt down. All it would take is a misconfigured > client or MTA to > remove certain headers before sending the message > on, and you and > everyone else would be toast. > > Before you take a shotgun with a hair trigger and > load it with > thermonuclear shells, you might want to give some > consideration to > what it might do when you go away and leave it > pointed in your > direction -- especially when there are children and > pets around, any > one of which might accidentally set it off. > > -- > Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a > little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." > -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of > Pennsylvania. > >SAGE member since 1995. See > <http://www.sage.org/> for more info. __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover -- Mailman-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
[Mailman-Users] how to arrange a list with 'affiliate' members
I am trying to configure a list or group of lists to exhibit the following behaviour, but have been having trouble: I run a list called 'discuss', which is a discussion list for members of our organisation. We would also like to invite a handful of people to be 'affiliate' members, but who would not have quite the same experience of the list. We want these 'affiliate members' to be able to post to 'discuss', and any replies to their posts to be distributed to them. In addition we would like regular members to be able to insert a keyword to indicate that the conversation they are starting is to include these 'affiliate members'. But for all other list traffic, they would excluded. The most obvious mechanism would be to subscribe the affilate members as full members of 'discuss' and use Topics - restricting them to receive only posts with [affiliate] in the subject. However, I can see no way of preventing them lifting this restriction from themselves, and in any case they would be obliged to remember to use the keyword if they wanted any replies. The only other solution I could think of was to have another list - say 'open', of which 'discuss' was a member. This would allow control of who was an affiliate member, and would take care of inbound posts to 'discuss'. However, to allow replies back to the affiliate members would involve either: *Having the 'discuss's reply-to UN-munged (which I am against because we have 100% non-technical people, and no replies would ever reach any list at all if they had to remember to hit 'reply to all'!) or *Having 'open' being a member of 'discuss' (in addition to 'discuss' being a member of 'open'). Presumably this is what is technically known as a BAD THING! I wouldn't be at all surprised if I have overlooked something very obvious - in any case all suggestions would be very gratefully received! Thanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover -- Mailman-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
