Brad Knowles wrote:
> Mailing lists are useful for a wide variety of things, but
> VT-type emergencies are not among them.
Well we definitely know that it isn't the *only* solution (there are
speakers and alarms and sirens and lights and cameras everywhere on
campus). But it is just one more t
On 7/15/08, Savoy, Jim wrote:
We have class lists,
lab lists, club lists, team lists, student lists, employee lists,
security lists (some of which contain every soul on our campus - rarely
ever used (never used yet, in fact, knock wood) for Vi
> Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
> P.S. I still don't understand why they insist on an invite model.
> Because all it takes is one listowner that doesn't understand and does a
> mass subscribe of a number of people, some of those people complain and then
> the entire ISP gets blacklisted. And some blackli
Hello Jim,
"I think that by running the server ourselves (and using only addresses
from our domains) warrants this admittedly fascist attitude. Perhaps the safest way
to handle this (in future releases) is to make mass-subscribe=NO the default setting
for new installs, but not removing the opti
I guess we might be considered a fascist regime, but mass-subscribe
is an invauable tool here at our university. Hardly any of our lists are
opt-in (what a nightmare that would be for us - we need our lists up
and populated on exact dates and ready to roll). We have class lists,
lab lists, clu
Hi there,
Stephen J. Turnbull:
> This is a market to gain for Mailman but it currently lacks a few
> features to do that. Well, my post is slowly getting off topic
But IMO it would be quite on-topic for mailman-developers. This kind
of post would be more effective in inciting dev activity i
Zbigniew Szalbot writes:
> 1/ Mailman as a discussion list - like the one we're having here. I
> don't imagine spammers would be setting up their lists as discussion
> list, would they? I don't actually imagine big time spammers using
> mailman. They're all about botnets.
Big time spammers
On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:06 PM, Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
It's a bit more work to get rid of junk mail but, again, the law
says you
have to be removed from their list if you ask. And there are some
places
to sign up to opt out of receiving mass mailings.
The problem with this, is the fact tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 11, 2008, at 4:18 AM, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
2/ Mailman as a newsletter/announcement list.
I can't sponsor the developers (sad but true) but I'd love to see
Mailman giving me an option to create either discussion or
announcement list wit
Hi all,
I have to disagree. Anything that can be done with the Mailman "mass
subscribe" feature can be done just as effectively with a contact
list on Gmail, in theory.[1] It's other aspects of Gmail policy that
(so far at least) make that a small enough problem that I've never
considered fi
Brad Knowles writes:
> I know there are people who use it responsibly, which is why I
> don't advocate too strongly for its removal. But that doesn't mean
> that it doesn't get abused, or that we shouldn't do things to try
> to curb that abuse.
I have to disagree. Anything that can be done
Michael Welch writes:
> I think that bulk adding is a dangerous thing to allow, from the
> host's viewpoint at a minimum. Who's to say what unscrupulous
> a-holes are ready to take advantage of that ability.
Very dumb ones. I really don't see a major social problem here; as a
host, make your
Larry Stone writes:
> Brad, I'm glad you added that. But it raises an interesting topic of
> discussion which is why is e-mail held to a different standard than
> other means of communication.
Because it's different. First, the costs are several orders of
magnitude cheaper. Second, identifyi
Cyndi Norwitz writes:
> There are two differences with email: 1) there are only spotty and poorly
> enforced laws against junk email (in part because a lot of it is
> international and/or hidden) and 2) sending snail mail, faxes, or phoning
> all cost money--sending emails costs little to noth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>How can the Mass Subscriptions options for all new lists be changed to only
>Invite? I'd like to eliminate the Subscribe option. I looked in the
>Defaults.py file but did not find this.
There are no settings for it nor for defaulting subscribe/invite to
invite (altho
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:12:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Larry Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
When someone applies for games, I use mass subscribe to add them. I
think it's reasonable to conclude that by applying, they have an
expectation that I'll use the address they've provided to send them
Hank van Cleef wrote:
I am going to go on record as very strongly OPPOSED to removal of the
"mass subscribe" feature. We used it as the only method a new user
can subscribe to the list.
I know there are people who use it responsibly, which is why I don't
advocate too strongly for its remov
--On Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:42 PM -0600 Hank van Cleef
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The two mail subscription ports (-join, -subscribe) are disabled.
How can the Mass Subscriptions options for all new lists be changed to only
Invite? I'd like to eliminate the Subscribe option. I looked in t
The esteemed Brad Knowles has said:
>
> Personally, I would be happy to see the "mass subscribe" feature go away
> completely from the web interface of Mailman, or at least disabled by
> default. But then I've been fighting spam since the time I was the Sr.
> Internet Mail Administrator at AOL
Larry Stone wrote:
Brad, I'm glad you added that. But it raises an interesting topic of
discussion which is why is e-mail held to a different standard than
other means of communication.
This is a lot like another case where there is only harm perceived when
someone claims that they've been ha
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Brad Knowles wrote:
> Michael Welch wrote:
>
> > That said, my own need calls for the ability to do just that.
>
> And I've used it myself on numerous occasions. This is why I haven't made
> too much noise about stripping this function, or even turning it off by
> default. I
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
I really really hate having my ability to effectively run lists (or
websites or chats) curtailed because of the huge numbers of greedy jerks
out there. I realize it can't be ignored but I am hoping there could be
some middle ground.
End original message. -
Right, Brad.
Did you note that on our subscribe page, the default radio box is "subscribe"
and not "invite?"
I do not know if that is a site admin setting, but it seems to me it should be
the opposite.
Brad Knowles wrote at 11:58 AM 7/10/2008:
>Michael Welch wrote:
>
>>That said, my own nee
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
I thought Mark's suggestion of limiting direct adds to a small number per
time unit, or my ISP's suggestion of being able to give particular lists or
listowners the ability to do direct adds (overruled by his superviser it
seems), to be quite reasonable.
Agreed.
Of course
Michael Welch wrote:
That said, my own need calls for the ability to do just that.
And I've used it myself on numerous occasions. This is why I haven't made
too much noise about stripping this function, or even turning it off by
default. I trust myself to use it, and I'm willing to trust m
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:20:01 -0500
From: Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
> P.S. I still don't understand why they insist on an invite model.
Because all it takes is one listowner that doesn't understand and does a
mass subscribe of a number of people,
Hi friends.
I think that bulk adding is a dangerous thing to allow, from the host's
viewpoint at a minimum. Who's to say what unscrupulous a-holes are ready to
take advantage of that ability.
That said, my own need calls for the ability to do just that. We are qualifying
individual supporters
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
P.S. I still don't understand why they insist on an invite model.
Because all it takes is one listowner that doesn't understand and does a
mass subscribe of a number of people, some of those people complain and then
the entire ISP gets blacklisted. And some blacklists y
Cyndi Norwitz writes:
> I appreciate your input. I am curious what other server owners/
> ISP's do. From the talk on this list, it would seem that any
> restriction on what listowners can do is considered a violation.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a violation, but I would not
want
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Cyndi Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming you ran a system with users you didn't know well enough to judge,
> what sorts of options would you consider implementing? If any...
Excellent question. I would have to think, given the prevalence and
persistenc
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:54:59 -0400
From: "Jim Popovitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Cyndi Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously, I disagree. As do all the other mailing list providers that I'm
> aware of.
Not me. If I were setting up a Mail
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Cyndi Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously, I disagree. As do all the other mailing list providers that I'm
> aware of.
Not me. If I were setting up a Mailman system that allowed un-trusted
users to admin lists, then I would remove the bulk-subscription
Sigh...this is my ISP's response to my request. At least they did take it
seriously and consider it (the option is Mark's suggestion of a severe
limit on numbers of subscribers listowners could add per
day/week/whatever).
"We have decided that we are not going to implement this option on our
curr
Hi all, I am finally doing a followup on this. Mark asked me to vet his
proposed solution to my ISP and see what they said. They actually took it
quite seriously and discussed it. I just got a phone call from the head
guy in that department who wanted to speak to me directly about it. (Mark,
I'
That is EXACTLY right.
Mark Sapiro wrote:
My understanding of this is that "double opt-in" and what I call
"confirmed opt-in" are the same thing and that they mean
1. User requests to be on the list via a web form, email, etc. This is
the first opt-in. Note that strictly speaking, this probably
Hello,
Let me first say I was in no way competing with Cyndi's suggestion, I
should probably have prefaced by saying I think the option provided is a
good one. And again, we have no modifications to Mailman that is not
built in to modify (we have turned off personalization for example, but
no
Fil wrote:
>
>I'd be interested to know what you call "double opt-in". Is it a web
>subscription + email reply with the cookie, or double-that (and in
>that case, what is the scenario).
My understanding of this is that "double opt-in" and what I call
"confirmed opt-in" are the same thing and that
Hi Krystal,
I'd be interested to know what you call "double opt-in". Is it a web
subscription + email reply with the cookie, or double-that (and in
that case, what is the scenario).
FWIW I don't think the option Cindy proposes passes Occam's razor. For
the moment it looks like lots of complexity
Brad Knowles writes:
> I don't see a problem with having this discussion continue on the
> mailman-users list for now (at least you'll get the opportunity for some
> feedback from other mailman list/site admins who are not on the
> mailman-developers list),
I think the very "political" nat
(figures, apparently my mail program is one of those *broken* ones so
apologies, this originally sent off list)
Hello Cyndi,
I do see where you are coming from, but abuse issues can go the opposite
direction from your description, and usually does.
The host I work for does NOT turn off mass
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
Please let me know if I should post this elsewhere too.
This is kind of an edge case. You're getting close to territory that would
probably be better handled over on the mailman-developers list, although
you're not really discussing any particular specific code changes
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:51:02 -0700
From: Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I can see that actual site settings something like
MAXIMUM_LIST_OWNER_SUBSCRIBES = 10
LIST_OWNER_SUBSCRIBE_WINDOW = days(7)
to allow at most 10 subscribes in any 7 day period, might be an
alternative
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
>Please let me know if I should post this elsewhere too.
>
>The Mass Subscribe feature has two settings: on and off.
No it doesn't.
>My
>ISP has chosen to turn off Mass Subscribe. Only the invite feature is
>left.
This is not a setting. It is a code modification done so
Please let me know if I should post this elsewhere too.
The Mass Subscribe feature has two settings: on and off. Although Mailman
was designed for users to self-install, and presumably they can trust
themselves not to abuse it, the truth is that an awful lot of Mailman list
owners do not have acc
44 matches
Mail list logo
