On Mar 9, 2006, at 9:33 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> [...snip...]
> I think what we really need is some way to guarantee that any of
> several different suitable formats could be used, some of which might
> be more easily understood at a glance, others which might be more
> complex but also more sc
> [...snip...]
>
> I think we're drifting here from a logical format. If there is to
> be shared
> ownership, I think that needs to be done with a different
> database. It could
> be a nightmare from the admin side if you group things by who wants
> to own
> what lists, rather than by domai
At 9:04 PM -0500 2006-03-09, Bob Puff wrote:
> I think we're drifting here from a logical format. If there is to be shared
> ownership, I think that needs to be done with a different database. It could
> be a nightmare from the admin side if you group things by who wants to own
> what lists,
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 09:04:59PM -0500, Bob Puff wrote:
> I think we're drifting here from a logical format.
You could be right. My structural and pedantic parts liked the
subdirectories for parts of hostnames, but I'm not glued to the idea yet.
:o)
> I believe the initial point behind the st
-- Original Message ---
From: Msquared <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: mailman-developers@python.org
Sent: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:00:07 +0800
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Virtual Domains Redux (w proposal)
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 08:16:39PM -0500, Bob Puff wrote:
>
> > I don't foll
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 08:16:39PM -0500, Bob Puff wrote:
> I don't follow why one would need that, if you already separated based on
> email domain. In other words, if you had [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED], why not:
>
> /lists/sussex.com/list
> /lists/physics.sus
Ops! Sorry for the typo in the subject. :-(
Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
> Hi Developers and i18ners,
>
> Mailman 2.1.8a1 was released for alpha test and i18n translations.
> Unfortunately, SF file upload is currently down, so I've put up the tar
> ball and the GPG signature on my Japanese Mailman si
Hi Developers and i18ners,
Mailman 2.1.8a1 was released for alpha test and i18n translations.
Unfortunately, SF file upload is currently down, so I've put up the tar
ball and the GPG signature on my Japanese Mailman site.
gzipped tar file ... http://mm.tkikuchi.net/mailman-2.1.8a1.tgz
GPG signa
I don't follow why one would need that, if you already separated based on
email domain. In other words, if you had [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED], why not:
/lists/sussex.com/list
/lists/physics.sussex.com/list
/lists/english.sussex.com/list
?
Bob
-- Origin
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 02:55:14PM +, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> I'd propose a slight variation on that, to better accommodate
> campus/corporate setups, as well as hosting providers:
>
> lists/tld/subdomain/.../listname
>
> for example, I'd have:
>
> lists/uk/ac/sussex/
> lists/uk/ac/sussex/phy
Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Rich Johnson wrote:
[
lists//
vs.
lists/tld/subdomain/.../listname
vs.
...
]
>> With all these variations, it might be reasonable to consider dumping
>> the path macros altogether and switch to a functional model.
On Mar 9, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Rich Johnson wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, implementing the lists// and
>>> archives/(private|public)// was one of the
>>> first
>>> things I have implemented, as it is one of the easiest parts and had
>>> been mentioned at
On Mar 9, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>
>> Actually, implementing the lists// and
>> archives/(private|public)// was one of the first
>> things I have implemented, as it is one of the easiest parts and had
>> been mentioned at
>> http://www.zope.org/Members/bwarsaw/MailmanDesignNotes/Virt
--On 4 March 2006 06:16:12 +0100 Hans Ulrich Niedermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, implementing the lists// and
> archives/(private|public)// was one of the first
> things I have implemented, as it is one of the easiest parts and had
> been mentioned at
> http://www.zope.org/Membe
--On 3 March 2006 13:39:18 -0800 Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
I guess that's a legacy term. Shouldn't we be using the term "d
15 matches
Mail list logo
