Re: [Mailman-Developers] Virtual Domains Redux (w proposal)

2006-03-03 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyway, my intent is not to critique other solutions, but to say that > I would much prefer to see a directory inserted rather than a > host_name appended. This has performance advantages and might fit > better with a scheme of "hashed" intermediate direct

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Virtual Domains Redux (w proposal)

2006-03-03 Thread Mark Sapiro
Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The key people you've got to convince are Tokio and Mark -- Since I've been nominated as a key person to convince, here's one remark. > The general idea is to have use the "foo", "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and > "[EMAIL P

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Virtual Domains Redux (w proposal)

2006-03-03 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 2:23 PM +0100 2006-03-03, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > >> Our goal is to give this branch to the Mailman project if they want >> it. If they do not for any reason, we'll have to maintain our vhost >> branch until Mailman 3 with all the necessary

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Virtual Domains Redux (w proposal)

2006-03-03 Thread Brad Knowles
At 2:23 PM +0100 2006-03-03, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > Our goal is to give this branch to the Mailman project if they want > it. If they do not for any reason, we'll have to maintain our vhost > branch until Mailman 3 with all the necessary features has been > released. :) If yo

[Mailman-Developers] Virtual Domains Redux (w proposal)

2006-03-03 Thread Hans Ulrich Niedermann
Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > AKA, "The Perennial Issue" (TPI) Hehe. Right, we have run into this here again and again as well. :) > I've been looking at this for a while; I've scanned the archives; and > I've perused the code (well a chunk of it anyway). > I realize that mailman