On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 16:48, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 4:26 PM -0500 2004/01/22, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> > Who's the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message?
> > Is Mailman acting as this agent? Arguably not.
>
> I disagree. I believe that this is exactly the role th
At 4:26 PM -0500 2004/01/22, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Who's the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the message?
Is Mailman acting as this agent? Arguably not.
I disagree. I believe that this is exactly the role that Mailman
is fulfilling.
One other thing. Mailman also adds an Err
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 15:39, Richard Barrett wrote:
> And I did not say it would. Nor is it necessary to so do. Outlook is
> not wrong and nor is Mailman. Its just that some users are confused by
> what they see and some mailing list admins are equally confused about
> why their users are confu
On 22 Jan 2004, at 14:19, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 6:52 AM + 2004/01/22, Richard Barrett wrote:
If this list's membership forged a consensus behind a manageable and
relatively minor proposal to change Mailman, which did not compromise
its adherence to RFCs, then maybe there is a way forward
On 22 Jan 2004, at 12:25, Martin Hugo wrote:
We use Outlook 2002 and all the messages I receive (from this and our
own lists) have the from field correctly reported as the sender.
Either
something has been changed in Outlook 2003 or there is a machine
configuration problem either on the recipien
I should read all mail before sending I suppose. Thanks Ari for your
explanation. It works for me...
- Original Message Follows -
-snip-
> Mailman is doing the right thing, by specifying the Sender address
-snip-
> There is no way for the Mailman developers to fix this, since if
-snip-
> T
See below:
- Original Message Follows -
>
> At 02:32 PM 22/01/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product
> superior >enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programing and
> faulty RFC >interpretation?
>
>
> What is wrong with thi
At 6:52 AM + 2004/01/22, Richard Barrett wrote:
If this list's membership forged a consensus behind a manageable and
relatively minor proposal to change Mailman, which did not compromise
its adherence to RFCs, then maybe there is a way forward to suit most
people.
This still doesn't fix t
At 12:00 AM -0500 2004/01/22, Rabinowitz, Ari (Exchange) wrote:
There is no way for the Mailman developers to fix this, since if they
didn't have the Sender address be the list bounce address then all of
Mailman's bounce handling would no longer work, and the author of the
message would get fl
At 8:32 PM -0800 2004/01/21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product superior
enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programing and faulty RFC
interpretation?
Mailman is a volunteer project. Volunteers will work on the
sorts of things that the
We use Outlook 2002 and all the messages I receive (from this and our
own lists) have the from field correctly reported as the sender. Either
something has been changed in Outlook 2003 or there is a machine
configuration problem either on the recipients machine or the senders.
HTH
Marty
-Ori
On 22 Jan 2004, at 05:00, Rabinowitz, Ari (Exchange) wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Brendan Pratt
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:49 PM
What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product superior
enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programin
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Brendan Pratt
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:49 PM
>
> >What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product superior
> >enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programing and faulty RFC
> >interpretation?
>
Mailm
At 02:32 PM 22/01/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product superior
enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programing and faulty RFC
interpretation?
What is wrong with this idea, is that it means Mailman is going against the
RFC that it curre
I do not disagree with you.
Consider this...
Why would stupid corporate exec's who more often than not, throw good
money after bad, change anything they are doing? Especially when
Micro$cof has the market and the exec's can simply order a change to
suit their concept of what might be wrong.
W
--On Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:56 PM -0600 Linda Pahdoco
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If only life were that easy.
So I'm supposed to tell my client "Just tell the hundreds of corporate
people who belong to your mailing list to not use outlook?"
We're looking for a real life answer, not a perf
--On Wednesday, January 21, 2004 4:09 PM -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The link to file a bug report is here:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=103&atid=100103
The above should be one line.
I could find nothing in the archive about open bug reports on outlook
and displaying addresses...
Fi
At 11:37 AM +1000 2004/01/22, Brendan Pratt wrote:
Perhaps someone out there could put together a list of very specific
bugs with Microsoft lookOut and lookOut Express, in a bug report
format, and then place it online somewhere so that we could all
direct our clients to. This way the client ca
Hi Brad,
At 10:33 AM 22/01/04, you wrote:
At 5:56 PM -0600 2004/01/21, Linda Pahdoco wrote:
So I'm supposed to tell my client "Just tell the hundreds of corporate
people who belong to your mailing list to not use outlook?"
We're looking for a real life answer, not a perfect world one.
At 5:56 PM -0600 2004/01/21, Linda Pahdoco wrote:
So I'm supposed to tell my client "Just tell the hundreds of corporate
people who belong to your mailing list to not use outlook?"
We're looking for a real life answer, not a perfect world one.
If Outlook is inappropriately munging the "Sender:
I could find nothing in the archive about open bug reports on outlook
and displaying addresses...
Why would stupid behavior in Outlook be considered a mailman bug?
If people want to use Microsoft's Virus Propagation Wizard to mangle
their mail, that should be their problem.
mjb.
Today's whimsy
>
>
> From: Thomas Hochstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] From field displayed by MS Outlook
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:09:02 +0100
>
>
>
> If it is a problem, it's not a problem with Mailman.
>
>
]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] From field displayed by MS Outlook
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:09:02 +0100
If it is a problem, it's not a problem with Mailman.
Ugly - but Outlook. :)
Don't use Outlook if you don't like the way it
"Jon Stethridge" schrieb:
> I think like so many others I am effected by the from: address being
> incorrectly reported in Outlook. I am guessing since nothing has been
> posted to the list this is still a current problem.
If it is a problem, it's not a problem with Mailman.
> I can report that
24 matches
Mail list logo
