On 3/11/02 11:33 PM, "Ben Gertzfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just changing the default from underneath admins who upgrade a minor
> release (heh) from 2.0 to 2.1 will confuse the hell out of everyone.
If that's what you think, you should have been yelling to have this named
Mailman 3.0 lon
On 3/11/02 11:36 PM, "Ben Gertzfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but why should this be default?
I'm not arguing that it should be. I'm actually with you on that.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chuqui.com/
Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh
nervous
> "Chuq" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BG> What exactly do we gain from this?
Chuq> A couple of things.
Chuq> First, it stops the "subscribe and spam", which is a growing
Chuq> problem. It's not an issue with the big spammers (except on
Chuq> major list
> "BAW" == Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "BG" == Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BG> Okay, but this means that new list members will not be able to
BG> post to lists until the admin sets them to be un-moderated,
BG> right, by default?
BAW> Their
On 3/11/02 11:14 PM, "Barry A. Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The mail command processor is one of the last things (not counting
> pipermail) that I've wanted to rip out and rewrite, because it's hard
> to do things exactly like this.
Fair enough. Just thought I'd ask.
> I may have a laps
> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CVR> What about just stopping processing of a message once you see
CVR> the confirm? Is that reasonable?
It's entirely reasonable... unless you've looked at the code. ;)
The mail command processor is one of the last things (n
On 3/11/02 10:45 PM, "Barry A. Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> F> 2) When users reply to a confirmation cookie, they usually send
> F> their cookie followed by several lines of whatever
> F> (signature). Mailman sends them the "your message in error"
> F> reply, instead of "welcome
On 3/11/02 10:24 PM, "Barry A. Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Their postings will be held for approval, correct.
>
> BG> What exactly do we gain from this?
A couple of things.
First, it stops the "subscribe and spam", which is a growing problem. It's
not an issue with the big spammers
> "DM" == Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DM> Bug in latest confirm.py: passwords not completely stamped
DM> out. Breaks Web subscription confirmations.
Fixed, thanks!
-Barry
___
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
htt
> "F" == Fil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
F> 1) when I send a Macintosh file for "mass subscription" via the
F> web, Mailman does not understand the Mac's linefeeds as
F> separators for addresses, and sees just one (wrong) address.
This should be fixed now in cvs.
F> 2) Whe
> "LN" == Les Niles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LN> BTW, the way I produced the problem was just by copying a
LN> lists/ directory -- for a list with some
LN> disabled-delivery subscribers -- from 2.0beta6 to 2.1alpha4.
Cool. I'm much more confident that the bug is now squashed
> "BG" == Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BG> Okay, but this means that new list members will not be able to
BG> post to lists until the admin sets them to be un-moderated,
BG> right, by default?
Their postings will be held for approval, correct.
BG> What exactly
> "F" == Fil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
F> I was wrong, sorry Ousmane.
F> It's something in the way the multi-part message is formed, but
F> I can't find what (I don't know enough about MIME). However I
F> could "bounce" the problematic messages to Barry if he
F> wante
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 04:01:42PM -0500, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
> > Reply to all will reply to the Reply-To + To + Cc list in the MUAs I looked
> > at.
>
> Not true for all.
I guess I'm not too surprised. I'm not too sure the behavior in this case is
well defined. I just know that when I Cc
> Reply to all will reply to the Reply-To + To + Cc list in the MUAs I looked
> at.
Not true for all. I haven't checked recently, but the Netscape Mail I used to use
would send to the reply-to address exclusively, if it was defined, and not include
anything else.
Bob
_
[I'm Ccing mailman-developers in case a few people there aren't on
mailman-users, but please reply on mailman-users]
Ben Gertzfield wrote a patch which Barry recently included in mailman-cvs
which allows you to not receive the list copy of a message in you were Cced
in the headers (
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:20:05PM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>
> > "MM" == Marc MERLIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> MM> Mmmh, I'm really not sure why one would want that.
>
> I think the idea is that a list admin might want to force
> reply-to-alls to go back to the whole list.
> "MM" == Marc MERLIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MM> Mmmh, I'm really not sure why one would want that.
I think the idea is that a list admin might want to force
reply-to-alls to go back to the whole list.
MM> Would you agree that this setting was really meant to select
MM
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 01:46:33PM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> MM> Basically, I'm saying that if I post to a list without
> MM> reply-to munging, if I set (as a poster) a reply-to, it
> MM> doesn't make it to the list. (I just checked on 2 other
> MM> machines where I have mai
> "MM" == Marc MERLIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MM> Basically, I'm saying that if I post to a list without
MM> reply-to munging, if I set (as a poster) a reply-to, it
MM> doesn't make it to the list. (I just checked on 2 other
MM> machines where I have mailman-cvs installe
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 05:56:36AM -0500, Dale Newfield wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > - no dupe patch written by Ben and already in mailman cvs thanks to Barry
>
> Just wanted to note that one big piece of this (which is currently left
> out) still causes other problems. T
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> - no dupe patch written by Ben and already in mailman cvs thanks to Barry
Just wanted to note that one big piece of this (which is currently left
out) still causes other problems. The crossposted message is still
recieved multiple times, and even if some
Ok, so my plan was to make listwide reply-to munging go away (well, it would
still be there, but hopefully not needed in most cases/installations).
Two things were needed for that:
- no dupe patch written by Ben and already in mailman cvs thanks to Barry
- for really whiney users who just don't
23 matches
Mail list logo
