Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
I am far behind the discussion but I think we can add one more option to
newlist command like this:
newlist --urlhost=www.dom.ain --emailhost=mail.dom.ain listname
We also keep @ notation for backward compatibility:
newlist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone volunteer to make a patch?
I
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 20:29, Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
> I am far behind the discussion but I think we can add one more option to
> newlist command like this:
>
> newlist --urlhost=www.dom.ain --emailhost=mail.dom.ain listname
>
> We also keep @ notation for backward compatibility:
>
> newlist [EMAI
Hi,
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:09, Joe Rhett wrote:
>
>
>>And second, let's think about this:
>
>
> Sorry, I'm out of time to discuss this thread, so I'll just leave it at
> this: I've already given my vote on doing this in a backward compatible
> way. What's left is to g
On Oct 29, 2004, at 7:17 PM, Joe Rhett wrote:
That's fine. Since we're sticking with the obscure, unintuitive syntax
(to maintain backwards compatibility for an option that not a single
person
on the list said that they used and most didn't even understand)
could I persuade you to update the docu
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 06:17:04PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:09, Joe Rhett wrote:
>
> > And second, let's think about this:
>
> Sorry, I'm out of time to discuss this thread, so I'll just leave it at
> this: I've already given my vote on doing this in a backward compat
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 06:23:22PM -0400, Terri Oda wrote:
> Nono. You set up mailman.theirdomain.com or lists.theirdomain.com and
> point *it* at your server. You don't host anything but lists, all the
> lists then have addresses that are [EMAIL PROTECTED] and if
> they want to alias [EMAIL
1. You have the list owner change their DNS to point to you
2. You host their website and their domain
3. You provide a mechanism for them to update their web pages
4. You provide a mechanism for them to access their e-mail
5. You become a general support/ISP for said domain, even though you
only
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:09, Joe Rhett wrote:
> And second, let's think about this:
Sorry, I'm out of time to discuss this thread, so I'll just leave it at
this: I've already given my vote on doing this in a backward compatible
way. What's left is to generate a patch that satisfies my earlier
re
Already did it, as stated in my other post. If you are hacking around on
your friend's websites it might be "a few lines", but a production script
that must either succeed or tell you why not in useful terms takes hundreds
of lines.
But then I doubt that people who can't think beyond their person
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:36:27AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Really? I provide mailing list services for lots of my friend's bands
> (and most of my own), and they only need to create a new host name in
> their domain, and point that at my server. I only need to answer mail
> and web for that
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:36:27AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 23:59, Joe Rhett wrote:
>
> > A virtual host requires me to configure my server to answer mail for their
> > entire domain.
>
> Really? I provide mailing list services for lots of my friend's bands
> (and most
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 00:03, Joe Rhett wrote:
> What tools are those? A heavy web ui?
Personally, I'd write a scriptlet for bin/withlist to do it. Should be
just a few lines of Python since withlist takes care of getting
everything set up properly, deals with lock, etc.
config_list as someon
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 23:59, Joe Rhett wrote:
> A virtual host requires me to configure my server to answer mail for their
> entire domain.
Really? I provide mailing list services for lots of my friend's bands
(and most of my own), and they only need to create a new host name in
their domain, an
> We use config_list to set some specific options for each of our lists.
> We have completely automated the mailman list setup and it has worked
> without any human intervention for our 5000+ lists. Just create a
> config_list template file by outputting the configuration for an
> existing li
On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:03 PM, Joe Rhett wrote:
I'm -0 on it. I think it's generally not needed given all the other
tools at your disposal, but if a patch is provided that does this in a
clean, backward compatible way, I won't veto it.
What tools are those? A heavy web ui?
Sorry, did I overlook a c
> I'm -0 on it. I think it's generally not needed given all the other
> tools at your disposal, but if a patch is provided that does this in a
> clean, backward compatible way, I won't veto it.
What tools are those? A heavy web ui?
Sorry, did I overlook a command/command/command/commit ability
Vanity domains are almost NEVER virtual hosts.
A virtual host requires me to configure my server to answer mail for their
entire domain. That makes ZERO sense. Jesus Bob, have you ever worked on
anything besides a home pc?
lists.meer.net has hundreds of lists. 98% of those lists are
[E
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 14:45, Terri Oda wrote:
> Anyhow, for all that making newlist have some extra options *isn't*
> necessary, it seems like it'll make it that much more useful, so we
> might as well just do it. It's not like anyone has to use the extra
> options if they don't want to, and t
On Oct 27, 2004, at 1:48 PM, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...But vanity domains are normally virtualhosts, which already work.
I think it is counter-intuitive to have:
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and then have the web interface be at: http://some.other.domain/some
other folder/list
Normally they m
...But vanity domains are normally virtualhosts, which already work. I think it is
counter-intuitive to have:
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and then have the web interface be at: http://some.other.domain/some other folder/list
Bob
Joe Rhett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 01:31:00PM -0400, Barry Wars
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 01:31:00PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 13:16, Joe Rhett wrote:
>
> > It's also simple to run fix_url in a similar manner. So why is the url
> > setting provided with newlist?
>
> newlist predates both fix_url and config_list.
Make sense.
But anywa
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 13:16, Joe Rhett wrote:
> It's also simple to run fix_url in a similar manner. So why is the url
> setting provided with newlist?
newlist predates both fix_url and config_list.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
>> Most _people_ but not most sysadmins. This isn't my list. I want to set
>> up the required settings for the list to function from the command line.
..
>> Agreed, but fairly non-trivial to automate ;-0 Thus, command line...
> Is I indicated in a previous post, bin/config_list can chan
Joe Rhett wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:14:47AM -0400, Terri Oda wrote:
>> >Most _people_ but not most sysadmins. This isn't my list. I want to set
>> >up the required settings for the list to function from the command line.
>>
>> When I set up a list as a sysadmin, even for someone else,
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:14:47AM -0400, Terri Oda wrote:
> >Most _people_ but not most sysadmins. This isn't my list. I want to set
> >up the required settings for the list to function from the command line.
>
> When I set up a list as a sysadmin, even for someone else, I invariably
> log in
On Oct 26, 2004, at 9:50 PM, Joe Rhett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 06:09:25PM -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
You already have the ability to set host_name (which is the e-mail
domain) on the lists General Options page or with bin/config_list.
Granted, it's not as convenient as being able to set it to
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 06:09:25PM -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> You already have the ability to set host_name (which is the e-mail
> domain) on the lists General Options page or with bin/config_list.
> Granted, it's not as convenient as being able to set it to other than
> its default with bin/newli
Joe Rhett wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 04:44:35PM +0900, Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to introduce '--urlhost=' option and keep '@' for
>> backward compatibility?
>>
>> $ bin/newlist --urlhost=www.dom.ain listname
>> or
>> $ bin/newlist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>I agree with the
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 04:44:35PM +0900, Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to introduce '--urlhost=' option and keep '@' for
> backward compatibility?
>
> $ bin/newlist --urlhost=www.dom.ain listname
> or
> $ bin/newlist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with the logic, but I'd like a metho
On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:44 AM, Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
If I didn't feel guilty using my laptop while proctoring my students'
exam, I'd write the patch tomorrow while I'm stuck sitting in a quiet
room. I might do it later in the evening, though, if no one else
gets to it first.
We need no hurry for r
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 03:44, Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to introduce '--urlhost=' option and keep '@' for
> backward compatibility?
>
> $ bin/newlist --urlhost=www.dom.ain listname
> or
> $ bin/newlist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's a good idea too.
-Barry
signature.asc
Descripti
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 02:23, Terri Oda wrote:
> I was thinking of doing the same thing but with a space instead of a :.
> I can't think of any reason not to keep the backwards compatibility as
> long as we don't leave the confusing stuff in the documentation.
The problem with using a space is th
Wouldn't it be better to introduce '--urlhost=' option and keep '@' for
backward compatibility?
$ bin/newlist --urlhost=www.dom.ain listname
or
$ bin/newlist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, because there are many types of URL (including
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] email address specifications), so URL is not
--On Monday, October 25, 2004 4:44 pm +0900 Tokio Kikuchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Terri Oda wrote:
On Oct 24, 2004, at 10:19 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think you'd have to change this in a backward compatible way. A
counter proposal would be to add name:domain (simply change the '@' to a
Hi,
Terri Oda wrote:
On Oct 24, 2004, at 10:19 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think you'd have to change this in a backward compatible way. A
counter proposal would be to add name:domain (simply change the '@' to a
':') so it doesn't look like an email address. Continue to support the
original argumen
On Oct 24, 2004, at 10:19 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think you'd have to change this in a backward compatible way. A
counter proposal would be to add name:domain (simply change the '@' to
a
':') so it doesn't look like an email address. Continue to support the
original argument syntax for backwar
On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 19:02, Terri Oda wrote:
> Is there any particular reason we couldn't change the newlist script to
> accept "name domain" instead of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ? It's just that much
> less confusing if we don't have this thing that looks like an email
> address but isn't. I can'
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 02:49:44PM -0400, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Right. But when would you use a www.domain? I never use www. Do people
> name their box www? I usually name the host something else. I think most
> people are smart enough to figure out that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not
>
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:15:56AM -0400, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If your list machine isn't the same box as the webserver machine, then the
> web-based create isn't going to work. :-) I still think it makes sense.
I'm not even dealing with the web-based create, I'm dealing with the
com
|> If your list machine isn't the same box as the webserver machine, then
|> the web-based create isn't going to work. :-)
Unless the webserver is mounting the list machine's Mailman installation
via NFS.
I think that if you want a fair compromise, then require a '--posting-address='
argument t
Right. But when would you use a www.domain? I never use www. Do people name their box www? I
usually name the host something else. I think most people are smart enough to figure out that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not [EMAIL PROTECTED] You face the exact same problem of people doing the
same thi
On Oct 18, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your list machine isn't the same box as the webserver machine, then
the web-based create isn't going to work. :-) I still think it makes
sense.
Good point -- I'd forgotten we were still talking about web based
creation. I was makin
Hi Terri,
If your list machine isn't the same box as the webserver machine, then the web-based create isn't
going to work. :-) I still think it makes sense.
Bob
Terri Oda wrote:
On Oct 17, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Bob Puff wrote:
Hmm I guess I still don't get why "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is confusing, beca
On Oct 17, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Bob Puff wrote:
Hmm I guess I still don't get why "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is confusing, because
that
-is- the posting address of the list! If you want to add another
field for
domain, that's fine; but I think the current behaviour makes sense.
Is it always the posting ad
ld take the hostname used
as the domain name. It currently forces one domain.
Bob
-- Original Message ---
From: Terri Oda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Joe Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:02:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers]
On Oct 11, 2004, at 11:10 PM, Joe Rhett wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:47:37AM -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Well, the help for newlist (bin/newlist --help) is pretty clear that
the notation [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the e-mail address of the list but
just a way of specifying the web domain.
Right, b
> Joe Rhett wrote:
> >On this subject, why does creating a list with the host name set the web
> >interface? In no circumstance that I have ever seen are they the same,
...
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:47:37AM -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Well, the help for newlist (bin/newlist --help) is pr
>
> You can specify the domain to create your new list in by spelling the
> listname like so:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> where `www.mydom.ain' should be the base hostname for the URL to this
> virtual hosts's lists.
>
>
> Still, I think you have a point. Mailman/Cgi/create.py checks in the
Joe Rhett wrote:
>
>On this subject, why does creating a list with the host name set the web
>interface? In no circumstance that I have ever seen are they the same,
>except perhaps (in theory) for some hobbyist with a single computer?
>
>$ newlist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Sets the web interface to 't
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 01:28:05PM -0400, Terri Oda wrote:
> Also, we might want to put this somewhere in the online help for the
> list admin pages, if it's not already there. I've had a few list
> admins get confused because there's no setting for it, just a setting
> for the email domain. I
50 matches
Mail list logo
