On 4/7/02 5:30 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you considered that perhaps Mailman is just not for you?
Nope. Not relevant. Don't inject facts into a rant.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chuqui.com/
The first rule
mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
>> Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
>
>
> --
> Mailman-Users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
> Mailman FAQ: http://w
ou could put an X-header into messages with the karma
rating, so users could filter based on the karma rating. All sorts of fun
ways to get people to play karma politics on your mail list...
Funny, FWIW, is -3. It is one of the biggest problems with /. Karma. But I
digress.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Ar
t true at all. Regular people feel that way, too. And there's no
procmail for most of them.
That's why these things constantly come up as fights on lists all over the
place, including here. There IS no acknowledged "right" answer, but both
sides feel there is, and it'
!" -- and set the reply-to to the person I'm mad at.
If you don't strip that reply-to, all the angry replies go back to the poor
schmuck in the reply-to -- and since I've already abandoned the hotmail
account I used to start the bomb, I'm off scott free)
--
Chuq
r it some other way can set it up to look like
that for their personal use, without affecting the global environment. VERY
NICE. It solves one of those nagging issues I think most list admins have,
the nagging bickering over religious issues for which there is no "right"
asnwer.
-
gt; Now, it appears as though a few of the Python scripts aren't happy.
>> This is almost enough to make me want to go back to majordomo (ACK!! He
>> said the "m" word!!!) but I think I'll hold off for a bit and see
code.
Standard color templates might require a little tweaking, but that's easy.
--
Chuq Von Rospach ([EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chuqui.com/)
Will Geek for hardware.
The Cliff's Notes Cliff's Notes on Hamlet:
And they all died happily ever after
-
; to see what I've done. A
number of us have hacked the listinfo pages, and I've sent my changes back
to Barry as well...
--
Chuq Von Rospach ([EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chuqui.com/)
Will Geek for hardware.
--
Mai
On 1/30/02 9:38 PM, "Ed Reiss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Benny,
>
> Yes - I'm using Apache, and SSI had been enabled.
But SSI generally doesn't work in CGI programs, which the python files are.
The two are basically mutually exclusive.
What I did was use mod_layout (www.tangent.org) ins
On 12/20/01 11:56 AM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Really? I manage two larger than that (neither on mailman).
>
> Hurm. In my context above I'm assuming that "list" does not cover
> marketing lists per se but only what we'd historically/'net-wise
> consider a "mailing list"
So
On 12/20/01 1:01 AM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Are there any capacity limitations as far as the number of names
>> mailman can handle at a single time?
>
> Explicitly no. In terms of runtime resource consumption, yes.
I'd be very wary, unless you have really large iron. The
On 12/18/01 5:06 AM, "Tass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> default_process_limit = 150
>
> If you have 512M of Ram set it to 200, it will give you a lot of room.
Maybe. Maybe not.
One of the things you need to do when setting up your MTA is figure out what
your network can take. It makes no se
On 12/17/01 3:32 PM, "Bill Moseley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got a list of about 11,000 currently on Solaris/Sendmail/listproc that
> I'm thinking of moving to Linux/(qmail|Postfix)/mailman. Only one message
> a week is sent.
>
> Anyone running a list that big on Mailman? Any special
On 12/16/01 2:18 PM, "The Berean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any workaround in Mailman to prevent this from happening again?
Shoot anyone who does it, preferably in public, preferably in the virtual
kneecaps, to convince all of your othre users not to be so stupid.
A misbehaving or b
On 12/13/01 2:35 PM, "William H. Sterner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a new list manager and haven't been able to figure out how to
> suppress the following List- lines in each message from the
> Administrator's manual.
It's in the FAQ.
---
On 12/6/01 9:36 AM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you are committed to running sendmail, Chuq von Rospach posted
> details of the required configs to the -developers list (Q2 this
> year IIRC) with the comment that enabling them also turned off
> vario
On 12/5/01 10:29 AM, "Tass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my issues are just with trying to do member operation ..
How long does it take to add/delete an individual member?
FWIW, in my experience, the delay isn't mailman. It's disk I/O. Almost all
of the time spent in this operation is in Disk I
On 10/6/01 8:34 PM, "Margaret Levine Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've heard of list servers that bounce messages if the new content
> (non-quoted text) is fewer lines than the quoted material.
IMHO, that's a failed technique. It was tried long ago on usenet and didn't
work then, and I've
On 10/1/01 2:10 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ouch. Please be aware of the implicit security hole you're opening
> here.
Implicit? That's like calling amputation a flesh wound.
--
Mailman-Users maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTE
On 9/28/01 1:56 PM, "Nancy Montano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Error decoding authorization cookie".
>
> He recently moved out of the area and is now using a Satellite
> connection. This is the only change he has made.
That's enough -- he's now going through a proxy server, and I've seen
pr
On 7/14/01 11:32 AM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to brief examination here its lock bound rather than IO or
> CPU.
So mailman is setting and removing the lock for every address? If so --
Barry, isn't that a design flaw for this case?
--
d.
>
> Is this normal?
Wouldn't surprise me. Since it's a single process, your MP machine isn't
going to use all it's CPU, but the operation is going to be primarily
disk-limted anyway -- are you using fast disks? Slow disks?
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <h
On 7/11/01 3:46 PM, "Forrest Aldrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read it, and while I can appreciate the effort to support RFC 2369, I
> believe it would be beneficial to allow local administrators to make
> exceptions according to the needs of their particular lists.
>
> The FAQ below doesn
r someone else.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
"When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell."
--
han you to walk you
through it, or do it for you.
These tools assume a certain level of technical knowledge. If you don't
have that, you either need to get someone who does to help, or not use
them. It's not the tool's fault -- these things aren't blenders that
work as soon
nner's idle loop can then select() off
the socket and go to sleep until soemthing gets written to it.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished
o when it
gets busy. 2.1 will actually improve this further, but majordomo has a
bad tendency to implode a system if you get a burst of content and
haven't tuned the system right. Mailman's designed to avoid that, and
what you're seeing is one of the tradeoff's needed to avoid that
mes
in at 1:01 should be processed at 1:02, not 2:00.
Now, if you're really saying waiting as long as one whole minute (grin)
is too long, then I'd suggest you cut out the caffeine, not fix
Mailman...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTE
to make sure your future tests fail -- keep
testing...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky yo
ickly). But I try to keep that very
rare.
There's the real economy, the new economy and the false economy...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally fin
e a list mom" rule. My rules are actually fairly
simple. If you want to act like a list mom, know the rules you're
enforcing. And one of those rules is "don't do that". rather hard for
them to justify their actions that way, of course (grin)
--
Chuq Von Rospach,
hout creating other problems or impacting your
users.
Quick hacks usually come back to bite you. Usually on deadline.
> Also consider that this might be a very desirable feature on some
> lists, limiting the ability of a person to make excessive posts.
>
that's something for a
through.
they had to work hard to do it. Mailman's actually pretty good about it,
and I'd say 95% of the loops that do sneak through could be tgrapped by
trapping the default digest subject line, but that's mostly because
digests coerce reply-to (they basically have to. I can't ju
ut a filter than one that causes them, unless it's very,
very important to trap whatever Im trapping.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally fini
because they're generating too many messages...
What a great medium, where good discussions are so often seen as a bad
thing... snicker)
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in a 24 hour period.
>
And I'd be constantly being blocked from any number of mailing lists,
including, at times, this one.
That's the problem iwth this kind of "fix". you'll end up with false
positives, and it doesn't fix the problem. It simply makes it les
worst loops. It's just
as typical to see these things in a 30 minute turnaround as a 3 minute.
Or 2 hours. You can reduce the worst of the damage, but these hacks
don't really fix it.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EM
or better
or worse, that I'm never more than a walk back to the hotel room away
from a modem, and so I'm never away from e-mail even when I'm
vacationing. The joys of being (a) irreplaceable, and (b) my own boss in
my spare time.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http:/
ave this mental image, which includes some very motivated finger
gesturing. But that's probably not what you meant...
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROT
ook at improving
mailman to trap it. But the blatting mailbot is the problem -- it's
ignoring ALL of the things Mailman's done all along to tell the mailbot
to leave it alone and not bother telling us about the vacation; worse;
that vacation bot isn't smart enough to know it'
r logs and find out where the loop
starts. And we can't do that for you...
There are many possible sources to loops. Until you find it, we can't
answer your questiosn.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
reaching.
I'm not list mom, but I play one on TV. Speaking for Barry, I can only
say "let's cut this out and get back to talking about mailman"
Are we done spraying testosterone all over the mail list yet? Or do we
need another round of proving we're an even bigger expert
would argue that it should default to OFF
I'm not surprised. It's Barry's call, but I think the customized URL is
useful enough we want people to use it unless they have to turn it off,
we don't want to have to try to convince the people who install stuff
and leave everything d
t might kill some sites, so we have to give them an easy
ability to turn the feature off.
What do y'all think? I've included mailman-developers on this reply,
since while this started on mm-users, it really ought to be discussed on
the developers list...
--
Ch
e up with some
theoretical numbers and/or a way to build a realistic model of this...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally fini
these problems with a properly configured version of
postfix, exim or qmail. This is not a problem with mailman: this is a
design limitation in sendmail that we don't believe will be fixed in the
forseeable future.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[E
set to
> the list.
>
speak of the devil, guess what we were arguing about?
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
Q:
int, you have to decide it's not worth trying to save
>> someone from themselves.
>
>
>
of course, we have to remember they'll blame us for it, too.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
ople who don't
notice the header are unlikely to notice much of anything, including
sending them the instructions on parchment with gold ink carried by a
naked vestal virgin on an elephant. At some point, you have to decide
it's not worth trying to save someone from themselves.
--
Ch
On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 03:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Where then will you put the list submission address?
for the lists I'm talking about, thre is none. These are e-newsletters.
This isn't my mailman system. Sorry if it's not clear. This is my big
server.
-
's likely to confuse people who come into the
conversation midway and don't catch that we've redefined things on them.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I&#
g about going beyond that, to encoding the unsub with the
info needed to find the subscribed address automatically. We can put the
URL in there already; that just isn't always good enough. We're talking
about customizing that for each user.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://w
still supporting sendmail, which
does neither.
after all, isn't this just another API with a set of 'plug-ins'?
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I'
ge, and why should he care? how
does this improve the user experience?
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
95% of bei
ly, it's not (IMHO) worth
special casing it. If it's 30%, we need to special case it AND document
it so people know how to tune their systems. And if it's 60%, maybe we
shouldn't do it..
but we need to figure out what the impact is, and not guess or make
assumptions...
--
once you do that, you might
as well do VERP, since it's now free.
but if you don't want to do the customization for end-users, then yes,
intermittent VERP is fine.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
but will what we are proposing cause problems? It's only an issue if we
'put them over the edge', and I don't at all think we should ASSUME we
will. I'm willing to bet most sites will continue to work just fine.
It's osmething that might be useful to survey befor
l at me about stuff I sent them e-mail on, I can't force
them to read it, but I can tell them to not yell at me if they didn't...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, ye
delay issue. And I'd suggest the way to fix that is
to fix the Sendmail module, and have it use -Odeliverymode=defer. and
use the Smtp module for other MTAs. If they want to remote-SMTP to a
sendmail MTA, document that they're screwed. That's the only way to get
around thi
bes? Sure. The exposure of
risk is trivial compared to the aggravation of hassle to a user who
wants off a list, and is told "first, jump through this hoop"
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL
omputers are cheap,
compared to time lost by the people using them and the hassle they cause
to the users.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes
1:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will not take bull shit and smart emails! Just take me off your email list
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
I&
On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 12:43 PM, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> I think I'm gonna go find a tree to sit under. I'll be back later.
>
sorry, folks. That was meant to go privately, not to the entire list. I
pushed the wrong button.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <ht
ive.
I think I'm gonna go find a tree to sit under. I'll be back later.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
(sorry, Barry). Users who want to
unsubscribe want off. they don't want to play games, they just want to
leave. I have, in the last decade, seen ONE instance of forged unsubs on
my mail lists, and that was a guy who was trying to make a point and so
unsubsribed me from my own lists. Let'
equire you to rethink what you do and how you do it. If you want a real giggle, try to track down a complete set of revisions to my user documentation for my lists, and see how they change over the years (and how the underlying administrative attitudes change, too...)
"Are they so stupid that they can't see what I'm doing here?"
you know what? sometimes the answer actually IS yes. But I find it's a lot less often than most folks want it to be.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
Love is the process of my leading you gently back to yourself.
- Saint Exupery
isions what options are safe for new users to
tweak, and what you ought to hide until they define themselves as
experts.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally
k... It's easier to slack off and blame others
for not being good enough to understand what you've done.
And thus endeth the lecture...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECT
hey by definition ought to know how mail lists work any
more than my mom does? Answer: they odn't, but we assume they're somehow
stupid or arrogant when they don't get it)
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMA
hem to me, since I'm the only one with cli access, and I'll
deal with them.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my hom
r than complain about why non-techies aren't
techie -- use tech to find ways to make it unneccessary for them to be...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've fin
your mother
sign up for a bunch of mail lists and see how easy she finds it.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've
x27;t let clueless newbies tell me what they want me to do for them.
good for you. Let's see if you still have that compassionate enthusiasm
in 15 years.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[
n blame the admin for
not giving it to you. For a lot of domains, *@foo.bar.blatz is forwarded
to a single mailbox, and they don't have any way of finding out what the
address is.
Sorry, but mailman's not innocent of issues here.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://
onal site... I won't bore you).
I think the "teach them to fish" mode worked in earlier days. Today, too
many people feel everyone else owes them whatever they want.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
elsewhere.
On Wednesday, June 13, 2001, at 07:55 AM, JT wrote:
> Equally likely situations: he has *multiple* users too dumb to figure
> out how to unsubscribe (sad),
>>> Could you remove all traces of
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] from your
>>> system or i will be forced to
left the entire stupid
message in the reply. If that exists, bounce it. If not, assume they did
edit it enough, and even if you don't agree iwth how they edited it,
don't worry about it and leave it alone.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<
On Wednesday, June 6, 2001, at 03:11 PM, Dan Mick wrote:
> Ah, I love the New World...
>
> What you mean is 'Unix'.
>
Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings? I don't believe it!
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[E
Lyris does it, if you absolutely must have it, but Lyris isn't
free.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
I
the purpose of the monthly password reminder message.
> It shouldn't be too
> hard to insert that address in the trailer of each message, should it?
>
actually, yes. you have to significantly redo the delivery mechanism...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.
all over the archives. Barry, has this ever been added to the
FAQ, so we can simply point to it and not restart this argument again?
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've
Barry, whatever you do -- don't do it this way.
chuq
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Bernhard R. Erdmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed Jun 06, 2001 10:11:55 AM US/Pacific
> To: Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: delivery failure
>
", or by saying "strip all but these mime parts". Any stripped part ought to be replaced with a text part that documents the modification by mailman.
Conceptually, not tough, but since you might need to start ripping apart nested mime-parts...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gn
ng the
truncation.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
Stress is when you wake up screaming
ure EOF. Mailman needs to protect itself from this by
stripping weird ascii characters as the messages enter the system...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finall
>
Why do it that way? Instead, use an MX record to send it ot that
machine, and have that machine forward it in.
if the list server is inside the firewall, how is the web interface
getting out? another proxy?
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECT
On Sunday, June 3, 2001, at 11:55 AM, Mike T. Gholson wrote:
> On the same note, is there a way to 'mass subscribe' email
> addresses to the DIGEST version of the list?
>
yes. add_members -d instead of -n . It's right there
in the documentation... (add_members --hel
On Saturday, June 2, 2001, at 05:42 PM, Lance wrote:
>
> I see a "mass subscribe" area to add a bunch of new addresses to my
> lists but I don't see an equivalent "mass unsubscribe" option to remove
> a bunch of people at once. Am I missing it
bin/remo
ou can:
remove_users -f
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
It's not the pace of life that conce
On Thursday, May 31, 2001, at 09:22 PM, Mike T. Gholson wrote:
> It doesn't look like sendmail is the greatest MTA for
> use with Mailman. What is a good MTA that seems to work
> well with Mailman?
>
Sendmail works fine. But if you're not committed to sendmail, look at
hat the message is sent to,
> needs
> to be referenced in the body, like:
>
Mailman's not a good tool for this -- it's not set up for this kind of
use.
For this, especially a one-time deal, you're better off writing a
dedicated mail script of some sort. Mailman can't ha
On Sunday, May 20, 2001, at 09:03 PM, Dave Klingler wrote:
> Apologies to any Omni employees who read this some day and feel
> insulted.
I'll simply say not everyone agrees with Dave, and leave it at that.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[
On 5/16/01 9:30 AM, "Bob Puff@NLE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've noticed that I'm seeing a lot of "Sender domain must resolve" messages
> in my Postfix logs, most of which are from messages sent thru Mailman. I know
> this isn't specifically a mailman issue, as the errors are coming from the
On 5/13/01 1:21 AM, "Tib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're running on a 384k dsl then the only advertising is the stuff you put
> up yourself because it's your server.
Not true, but also not really relevant -- I was using it only as an example,
since it's my home DSL. My big stuff is somew
On 5/13/01 12:44 AM, "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you expect wireless mobile NOT to have web access? Hell, I use my web
> access when mobile much more than my email access.
No, but I expect wireless mobile to have limitations on display -- not to
the level that WAP hoses
On 5/13/01 12:22 AM, "Tib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who has email that does not have web access at the time they get their email?
Not a huge number, but not zero. As wireless mobile becomes more
significant, it'll be a growing issue, not a shrinking one.
> True: users who have a bland inter
On 5/12/01 10:51 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this curious. I have MAX_RCPT_TO set to 5, and to broadcast
> 30 messages to a subscriber base of 1,000 (ie 6,000 spool entries)
> through qrunner to the MTA (postfix) on a dual PII-333 takes just
> over 6 seconds once start
On 5/12/01 10:43 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) If your messages are getting corrupted, AT ALL, you have far more
> serious problems than how fast your system is able to deliver a list
> broadcast.
Yeah. TCP guarantees the data is good. You basically can't get corruption
un
On 5/12/01 7:20 PM, "Tib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To take another approach, mail out a link to the newsletter rather than the
> ENTIRE newsletter to each person. Do the math;
Your math is wrong, though.
> if you're mailing out a letter
> that's 30k, to 10,000 users. that's gonna be 300 meg
101 - 200 of 245 matches
Mail list logo
