-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 9, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Arne Schwabe wrote:
> At our University we developed a customized mini Interface called
> 'simple' Interface. The normal mailman Interface is still there,
> called
> 'expert admin'. A (non working) demo is here:
> https:/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> These sound like sensible plans and I'm curious about what 2.2 and
> 3.0 will
> bring. However, my question is whether we can expect some 2.1.x
> releases in
> the short term (like 2.1.10 you m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It's catch up on email day!
On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> WRT 3.0, for enterprise and education purposes, it's important to
> be able
> to hook into existing authentication and authorisation mechanisms.
> For us,
> that means L
http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/
-Dale
Dhttp://mailhide.recaptcha.net/d?k=01Qtvu7BFKxAunezLXAq0QPA==&c=QjjpEgddAt0UK7mq_dl1B-AnlzQr8HHSAY7jwMSGwJ0=";
onclick="window.open('http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/d?k=01Qtvu7BFKxAunezLXAq0QPA==&c=QjjpEgddAt0UK7mq_dl1B-AnlzQr8HHSAY7jwMSGwJ0=','','toolbar=0,sc
Barry Warsaw writes:
> But it would have to be subject to the same bounce rules as any other
> auto-response which could be used as a spam vector, e.g. limit the
> number of bounces per time period and don't include the entire
> original message in the bounce
But that prevents detecting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 20, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2007, at 15:52, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Mailman gets the From_ line before passing off to the archiver.
>> But that's interesting, does lurker /require/ the From_ line?
>>
>
> Well lur
On 20 Jul 2007, at 15:52, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Mailman gets the From_ line before passing off to the archiver.
> But that's interesting, does lurker /require/ the From_ line?
>
Well lurker handles Maildir - no From_ but the same info is in the
filename, and it can take messages on stdin wit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Nigel,
On Jul 20, 2007, at 10:38 AM, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2007, at 15:26, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> BTW lurker gives all messages an ID which is 3 parts separated by
>>> periods. The first part is a date fie
On 20 Jul 2007, at 15:26, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> BTW lurker gives all messages an ID which is 3 parts separated by
>> periods. The first part is a date field - ie 20070720, the second
>> part is the receive time, UTC, as 6 digits, and the final part
>> is some form of hex
ve contacts with the Lurker community that could
>> cross-
>> post a new thread to get the discussion going?
>
> The ML appears... lacking in vigor..
>
> BTW lurker gives all messages an ID which is 3 parts separated by
> periods. The first part is a date field - ie 2007
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 20, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Barry Warsaw writes:
>
>> Second, things can happen to a list
>> that might cause this sequence number to get corrupted.
>
> Add an X-Mailman-Sequence-Number header if not already present.
>
>
that could cross-
> post a new thread to get the discussion going?
The ML appears... lacking in vigor..
BTW lurker gives all messages an ID which is 3 parts separated by
periods. The first part is a date field - ie 20070720, the second part
is the receive time, UTC, as 6 digits, and the final
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 20, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> How likely is it that two messages with the same message-id and
>> date are /not/ duplicates?
>
> For message id generators that include a time-stamp in the generated
> id, approximately the s
Barry Warsaw writes:
> Second, things can happen to a list
> that might cause this sequence number to get corrupted.
Add an X-Mailman-Sequence-Number header if not already present.
That doesn't deal with your other comments, but as I point out
elsewhere, if you don't use *any* Mailman-specif
Barry Warsaw writes:
> First, I want to avoid talking about file system layout. To me,
> that's an implementation detail we needn't worry about right now.
Agreed.
> How likely is it that two messages with the same message-id and
> date are /not/ duplicates?
For message id generators t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:09 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> John A. Martin writes:
>
>> In the absence of a Message-ID
>> on an outgoing mail message many if not most MTAs will add one. Why
>> not let Mailman anticipate the need to add a Message-ID whe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 8, 2007, at 1:06 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> My personal opinion is that pipermail should be removed and mailman
> should not contain a default archiver since there are plenty of good
> archivers already (lurker, mhonarc etc). Adding wrappers around
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:09 PM, John Dennis wrote:
> A little over a year ago I went on a search to find the best open
> source
> archiver and at that time I came up with Lurker
> (http://lurker.sourceforge.net) Since then I believe Lurker has seen a
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
>> Maybe a way to think about this is that the canonical url is based on
>> the message-id, but then there's some way to distill even this down
>> to a tinyurl or simple integer that would be stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 4, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Dale Newfield wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Maybe a way to think about this is that the canonical url is based on
>> the message-id, but then there's some way to distill even this down
>> to a tinyurl or simple integer th
20 matches
Mail list logo
