[Mailman-Developers] lowercase in mailman create function

2007-10-05 Thread Lawren Quigley-Jones
I'm sorry if this issue was already addressed in later versions of mailman. I'm running debian etch and the mailman deb: dpkg -l | grep mailman ii mailman2.1.9-7 Powerful, web-based mailing list manager I wrote a majordomo like interface for mailman whi

Re: [Mailman-Developers] lowercase in mailman create function

2007-10-05 Thread Mark Sapiro
Lawren Quigley-Jones wrote: > >I wrote a majordomo like interface for mailman which allows users to perform >some backwards compatible functions via email, and access some information, >like subscribed lists and owned lists via a web interface. > >When I released the interface to users, one of the

Re: [Mailman-Developers] lowercase in mailman create function

2007-10-05 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Mark Sapiro writes: > Thanks for the report. I don't think it's necessary to open a bug. I'll > fix it without a bug in the tracker, Up to you, but it is useful to people with lower versions to be able to see that the bug has been reported, and what progress is being made, in the tracker. > b

Re: [Mailman-Developers] lowercase in mailman create function

2007-10-05 Thread Mark Sapiro
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >Mark Sapiro writes: > > > Thanks for the report. I don't think it's necessary to open a bug. I'll > > fix it without a bug in the tracker, > >Up to you, but it is useful to people with lower versions to be able >to see that the bug has been reported, and what progress i

Re: [Mailman-Developers] lowercase in mailman create function

2007-10-05 Thread Barry Warsaw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > We still need to make sure that we only create lists with lower case > names in the first place. The API which is the Create() method needs > to enforce this. So, I'm inclined to lower-case the name pro

Re: [Mailman-Developers] The Approved: header in MM3

2007-10-05 Thread Mark Sapiro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Barry Warsaw wrote: > >So the question is, what do we do about the Approved header? [...] >Comments? I think my preference would be for #1 with future support >for #2 and just accepting the fact that message signatures are for >power users. Maybe tha