On 5 Jul 2012, at 01:24, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
>
> Eg, this list would be "mailman.org.python.mailman-developers". I
> know that's considered ugly-out-the-wazoo, but these need to be UUIDs
> (consider mirrors), and mail...@python.org should not be in the same
> subtree as mail...@python.n
Ian Eiloart writes:
> OK. Where do these two email addresses sit?
Addresses aren't relevant. I proposed using List-Ids, which have to
be unique (RFC 2919). If an administrator specifies List-Ids that
collide, that's not our problem. (The author of RFC 2919 was aware of
similar problems, thoug
On Jul 05, 2012, at 09:24 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>IMO, make that *three* things. It ought to be possible to fire up the
>NNTP runner on an existing archive, and vend messages.
+1
>I suppose this means a separate database for news properties like the message
>to message number mapping, a
How hard is it for us to make a nicer, more helpful error page for this?
I'm guessing it's going to be a common problem when more people start
running the two together.
(I know, I know, I should know the answer and be able to write the
solution myself, but my django-fu isn't quite up to speed
Hi,
Am 05.07.12 17:40, schrieb Terri Oda:
> How hard is it for us to make a nicer, more helpful error page for this?
Shouldn't be too hard. I just filed a bug report for this:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/postorius/+bug/1021364
In a non-debug mode environment a 500 error page would be returned -
w
Robert,
Although I recognize your goal, it isn't as easy as simply providing transitive
membership.
First, I presume that you are willing to restrict yourself to the case where
lists listA, listB, and listC are served by the same instance of MM.
On the distribution side, that restriction certai
On Jul 05, 2012, at 01:58 PM, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>First, I presume that you are willing to restrict yourself to the case where
>lists listA, listB, and listC are served by the same instance of MM. On the
>distribution side, that restriction certainly is not necessary for list
>inclusion,
On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Robert Arlt Jr. wrote:
> I can as well. In my view of the issue I believe that allowing everyone
> on listB to submit is the better option as I can easily make a list
> composed of those allowed to send unmoderated to listB, call it listB2
> and add listB2 to listB the
I don't think Terri needs a cc, if she's not on mm-d.
Barry Warsaw writes:
> >The top-level maybe shouldn't be "mailman", but rather something like
> >"list-archive".
>
> Why is the prefix needed at all, especially since you qualified this as "not
> gatewayed to Usenet"? If all the message
