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
