Re: [Mailman-Users] List all users on one page

Brian Luria > >Where is the best place for me to start understanding terminal commands like >you list there. I am honestly not even sure where to start. I am only used >to the web based interface. The FAQ at lists the commands and what they do. Each command has a -

Re: [Mailman-Users] List all users on one page

Thank you. Looks like I have 2.1.9 - (have to look at upgrading) Where is the best place for me to start understanding terminal commands like you list there. I am honestly not even sure where to start. I am only used to the web based interface. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote

Re: [Mailman-Users] List all users on one page

Brian Luria wrote: >Is there a way to force all users to be listed on one page, versus having to >click through the alphabetical letters? If your Mailman version is 2.1.10 or later, set admin_member_chunksize on the list's General Options page to a number greater than the number of list members.

[Mailman-Users] List all users on one page

Is there a way to force all users to be listed on one page, versus having to click through the alphabetical letters? -- Brian J. Luria DVM, DACVIM Bluepearl Veterinary Partners Florida Veterinary Specialists Tampa: (813) 933-8944 Clearwater: (727) 572-0132 Brandon: (813) 571-3303 www.bluepearlv

Re: [Mailman-Users] cleaning up config.pck

Mark, Thanks the cron/checkdbs script had not been added to the crontab. Running that script resulted in list1's config.pck shrinking to just 40K. Cheers, Mike On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > Mike Cherry wrote: >> >> In looking at the dumpdb txt I see the issue is with t

Re: [Mailman-Users] cleaning up config.pck

Mike Cherry wrote: > >In looking at the dumpdb txt I see the issue is with the >hold_and_cmd_autoresponses. The size of the file does not correlate with the >number of subscribers rather the amount of spam the list recieves. > >list 1; config.pck size 16M, 1.2M hold_and_cmd_autoresponses addre

Re: [Mailman-Users] cleaning up config.pck

Mark, Of course you were right the size of my config.pck was not because of the bounce information. The with script did remove some old bounce info but not much. In looking at the dumpdb txt I see the issue is with the hold_and_cmd_autoresponses. The size of the file does not correlate with

Re: [Mailman-Users] Problem with inappropriate breaks in messages

Mark Sapiro wrote: >That said, I suspect the underlying OS here is Debian/Ubuntu and >Mailman is the Debian/Ubuntu package which has patches in this area >which are causing this. As I have written on this forum before, the Debian/Ubuntu package for Mailman has a large number of patches. One I k

Re: [Mailman-Users] Problem with inappropriate breaks in messages

What a star! Thanks Mark, I will take a look at it later today. Yes, it is Debian/Ubuntu - I must learn to specify this things from the start. Chris -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [Mailman-Users] Problem with inappropriate breaks in messages

Chris Malme wrote: > >However, the Pipermail Archive does consistently split messages whenever a >message-body "\nFrom " occurs, as I described earlier, with the second part >being attributed to "bo...@does.not.exist.com". > [...] > >So it looks like my problem is with the dynamic creation of the P

Re: [Mailman-Users] Problem with inappropriate breaks in messages

Based on the comments received here, I have gone back and had another look at this, and discovered I was wrong on a number of important issues. Apologies for this, but I am (obviously) new to Mailman, and didn't completely realise what I was seeing, the first time. This time, having looked at the

[Mailman-Users] Problem with inappropriate breaks in messages

On 20/04/2010 18:14, Mark Sapiro wrote: > That is the normal way of dealing with messages containing From_ in the > message body. It's not just Mailman or pipermail, and it's problematic > to unescape them for display, because while the escaping is normal, > there is no standard for escaping/unesc