Barry Warsaw writes:
> Let's say I just joined the XEmacs development mailing list after a
> long absence.
Hey, welcome back! Do you plan to return to Supercite maintenance?
> I find a message in the archive from two years ago that is relevant
> to an issue I'm having. I'd like to follow
* On 31 Aug 2009, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> Mailman will always still collect the raw data for messages sent to
> the list. There are legitimate uses for allowing outsiders access
> to that data (say, the list is moving and you want to migrate the
> archives), so I think we always want to support
On Aug 31, 2009, at 4:48 PM, David Champion wrote:
I'm going to embracing and extend something Barry suggested in
private mail. He suggested a list setting that permits signed-in
list subscribers to download raw archives if they have some
'archive-approved' status. What if that is a three-way
Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> On Aug 31, 2009, at 1:15 PM, C Nulk wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As for using robots.txt, hmm, it is not the legitimate search
>>> engines I
>>> care about, it is the search engines/crawlers that do not respect my
>>> robots.txt file that I care about.
On Aug 31, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Dale Newfield wrote:
Maybe the appropriate modifications from the original message would
be to add as a "To" address the current list address iff it does not
appear in the To or CC addresses in the archived message (and to re-
set ReplyTo, if reply-to-munging is
On Aug 31, 2009, at 4:39 PM, C Nulk wrote:
Now, totally off-topic, anyone have a recommendation for a book on
learning Python so I am no longer truly dangerous, just slightly.
There are zillions of books available now for learning Python (I think
there was only 1 when I first learned it 15 y
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Now I can hit 'reply' and inject myself seamlessly into that 2 year
old thread.
As long as the mailing list name/address hasn't migrated/changed in
the interim...
Good point.
...perhaps the original message munged to ensure current accuracy of
the to/cc/reply-to fields?
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2009, at 1:15 PM, C Nulk wrote:
>
>> I am pretty sure allowing the raw email addresses to be available is
>> going to go over like a lead balloon here. Anything (however minor) to
>> help protect the users/clients email addresses is helpful despite what
>> others
On Aug 31, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Dale Newfield wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Let's say I just joined the XEmacs development mailing list after a
long absence. I find a message in the archive from two years ago
that is relevant to an issue I'm having. I'd like to follow up to
that message using
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Let's say I just joined the XEmacs development mailing list after a long
absence. I find a message in the archive from two years ago that is
relevant to an issue I'm having. I'd like to follow up to that message
using my normal mail toolchain, but I found the archive page
Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>On Aug 31, 2009, at 1:15 PM, C Nulk wrote:
>
>> As for using robots.txt, hmm, it is not the legitimate search
>> engines I
>> care about, it is the search engines/crawlers that do not respect my
>> robots.txt file that I care about. If I had an effective way to
>> consiste
On Aug 31, 2009, at 1:15 PM, C Nulk wrote:
I am pretty sure allowing the raw email addresses to be available is
going to go over like a lead balloon here. Anything (however minor)
to
help protect the users/clients email addresses is helpful despite what
others think. It is fine if someone c
On Aug 29, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Barry Warsaw writes:
What I'm thinking is that there should be a "send me this message"
link in the archive, which gets you a copy as it was originally sent
to the list. That let's you jump into a conversation as if you'd
been
there o
On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:10 AM, Bernd Siggy Brentrup wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 18:03 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
What I'm thinking is that there should be a "send me this message"
link in the archive, which gets you a copy as it was originally sent
to the list. That let's you jump into a con
On Aug 29, 2009, at 12:21 AM, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
Yes. It is critical to keep user perception in mind. Specifically,
if you
don't keep email addresses off the global search engines, there will
be a
deluge of vocal complaints from users who neither care about nor
understand
the technical
I am pretty sure allowing the raw email addresses to be available is
going to go over like a lead balloon here. Anything (however minor) to
help protect the users/clients email addresses is helpful despite what
others think. It is fine if someone considers the obfuscation that
Mailman uses is tri
16 matches
Mail list logo
