At 5:56 AM -0700 2006-09-05, Jack Stone wrote:
> The knob in the web site configs about changing from YES to NO had
> me distracted thinking it was the place to change my setting for
> this preference.
Yeah, I'm confused too. I'm hoping that one of the core Mailman
developers will respond to
At least on Mailman 2.1.6, something about how the page where you
enter the administrative password is designed prevents Firefox from
remembering that password for me. It's extremely annoying, I have to
go look that one up in Passwordsafe each time I use it, which is
nearly daily. Anybody have an
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 7:06 PM -0700 2006-09-04, Jack
Stone wrote:
> I looked at FAQ 4.4 and the method described there using an external
> archiving tool like MHonArc with Mailman methinks is a monster [...]
It's not as clean as we would like, no. That is an area we are
At 7:06 PM -0700 2006-09-04, Jack Stone wrote:
> I looked at FAQ 4.4 and the method described there using an external
> archiving tool like MHonArc with Mailman methinks is a monster [...]
It's not as clean as we would like, no. That is an area we are
hoping to improve upon for future release
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 2:06 PM -0500 2006-09-04, Dan
Phillips wrote:
> Remember, what he's trying to do is to get pipermail NOT to obscure
> the addresses. This is completely unrelated to how the resulting
> files are used or what further processing is done on them.
--
At 2:06 PM -0500 2006-09-04, Dan Phillips wrote:
> Remember, what he's trying to do is to get pipermail NOT to obscure
> the addresses. This is completely unrelated to how the resulting
> files are used or what further processing is done on them.
I understand. The problem is that the standard
Dan Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 4, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> The Mailman method of obscuring addresses has always worked as
> described, in all installations I have ever encountered or heard of.
Remember, what he's trying to do is to get pipermail NOT to obscure
On Sep 4, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> The Mailman method of obscuring addresses has always worked as
> described, in all installations I have ever encountered or heard of.
Remember, what he's trying to do is to get pipermail NOT to obscure
the addresses. This is completely unrelate
At 7:04 AM -0700 2006-09-04, Jack Stone wrote:
> Brad: I did what you advised but mailman does not adjust to the new setting
> of NO to not Obscure. Yes, I have regenerated the archives -- the ones
> that belong to mailman of course.
Hmm. In which case, I'm not sure I've got any answers for y
Karl Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 07:04:37 -0700
(PDT)
Jack Stone wrote:
>
>
> I cannot modify the "post-prosessing script" because I
>use the program "Mhonarc" to generate the searchable
>version of my archives since Mailman does not include
>that feature. It ha
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 07:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
Jack Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I cannot modify the "post-prosessing script" because I
>use the program "Mhonarc" to generate the searchable
>version of my archives since Mailman does not include
>that feature. It has the nice feature o
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 6:06 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack
Stone wrote:
> I run a separate searchable archive where the whole address is munged
> with ""s, but now without the "@" regular format, the address is
> more exposed than before.
The archives are basically flat H
Jack Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack Stone wrote: Brad Knowles
wrote: At 11:36 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack Stone wrote:
Did the regen of the archives and NADA Just the same email format presented by
mailman archives:
amember at somewhere.com
Now what.
On the second sugg
Jack Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Brad Knowles
wrote: At 11:36 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack Stone wrote:
IMO, better yet would to modify your post-processing script so that
it understands both address formats, so that it doesn't matter how
this particular option is set.
--
Brad Knowles,
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 11:36 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack
Stone wrote:
> So, why doesn't the change from YES to NO on the obscure not work??
Because you still need to regenerate the archives, which you
apparently did not do.
IMO, better yet would to modify your post-process
At 11:36 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack Stone wrote:
> So, why doesn't the change from YES to NO on the obscure not work??
Because you still need to regenerate the archives, which you
apparently did not do.
IMO, better yet would to modify your post-processing script so that
it understands both add
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 6:06 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack
Stone wrote:
> I run a separate searchable archive where the whole address is munged
> with ""s, but now without the "@" regular format, the address is
> more exposed than before.
The archives are basically flat HTM
At 6:06 AM -0700 2006-09-03, Jack Stone wrote:
> I run a separate searchable archive where the whole address is munged
> with ""s, but now without the "@" regular format, the address is
> more exposed than before.
The archives are basically flat HTML files that are generated by
Mailman w
In the admin, I set the the "obscure address" to NO, but addresses are still
shown as:
"amember at somewhere.com"
Setting from YES to NO had no effect. Radio button NO is still set.
I run a separate searchable archive where the whole address is munged with
""s, but now witho
19 matches
Mail list logo
