On Monday 20 August 2007 11:48am, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 09:27 -0600, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> > > Yes, they handle things fairly nicely, but you lose a lot of
> > > control over things like headers (there wasn't anything a sorting
> > > rule could really be built on and
Gary Thornock wrote:
--- jtaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GoogleGroups requires cookies to post and it's my opinion
anything that writes to your hard disk like cookies are evil -
quite the opposite of open source.
Also, unless there's a way to get msgs sent directly to your
email, it also m
The Ruby group (URUG) moved from mailman to Google Groups and it was a
mostly smooth transition. I know of other lists that use Google
Groups as a
front-end to ease the load on their list app instance.
Did they move their archives over? Does anyone know of any group that
was using Mailman,
On 8/20/07, Lamont Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 19 August 2007 09:42pm, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I am toying with the idea of dropping Mailman for Google Groups and
> > would like some feedback from the group.
>
> I wouldn't do it. A couple of other lists I'v
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 11:48 -0600, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> Does Google Groups use standard mailing list headers? I am specifically
> interested in the List-* headers. I use some of them for my personal
> filtering.
nevermind, I joined and got a message. The answer is yes. The headers
are only ve
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 09:27 -0600, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> > Yes, they handle things fairly nicely, but you lose a lot of
> > control over things like headers (there wasn't anything a sorting
> > rule could really be built on and
> > sorting by subject isn't a good idea, but please folks
I'd suggest those interested/disinterested sign up for the Google
groups list and run a bit of discussion on it to see better how it
works. IE.: find out if we can get our filters, nesting, etc. to
work with Google groups and then make a decision whether it works
well enough for us.
Excel
> Google Groups would be a workable solution for this list
> that most of us could live with. I tend to like mailman
> better, partly because of the ability to customize headers
> and partly just because it's what I'm used to using, but the
> differences aren't important enough to me that I'd obje
--- jtaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GoogleGroups requires cookies to post and it's my opinion
> anything that writes to your hard disk like cookies are evil -
> quite the opposite of open source.
>
> Also, unless there's a way to get msgs sent directly to your
> email, it also means logging ont
--- Clint Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/19/07, Gary Thornock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> --- Clint Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Just don't use Google for domains!
>>
>> I'm wondering whether you mean that Google for domains would
>> be a bad fit for this list, or whether you'r
> GoogleGroups requires cookies to post and it's my opinion anything that
> writes to your hard disk like cookies are evil - quite the opposite of
> open source.
Actually Firefox writes to your hard disk, not cookies, so Firefox must be evil
and anti-opensource.
Well, most sites that require y
GoogleGroups requires cookies to post and it's my opinion anything
that writes to your hard disk like cookies are evil - quite the
opposite of open source.
Also, unless there's a way to get msgs sent directly to your email,
it also means logging onto the web, to the site, entering user/
pass
Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
Google for domains does host email (aliased) lists. And yes, they'd
be bad for our list.
I wasn't suggesting using a Google Apps mailing list for the UPHPU
mailing list. Those lists are just "group forwarding." My proposal was
to use Google Groups.
GoogleGroup
Yes, they handle things fairly nicely, but you lose a lot of
control over things like headers (there wasn't anything a sorting
rule could really be built on and
sorting by subject isn't a good idea, but please folks, don't flame
me on
that statement, however, ask if you don't understand me
Google for domains does host email (aliased) lists. And yes, they'd
be bad for our list.
I wasn't suggesting using a Google Apps mailing list for the UPHPU
mailing list. Those lists are just "group forwarding." My proposal
was to use Google Groups.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptogr
The Ruby group (URUG) moved from mailman to Google Groups and it was a
mostly smooth transition. I know of other lists that use Google Groups as a
front-end to ease the load on their list app instance.
You can subscribe and unsubscribe without ever having to create a Google
account if you wish, j
On Sunday 19 August 2007 09:42pm, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> All,
>
> I am toying with the idea of dropping Mailman for Google Groups and
> would like some feedback from the group.
I wouldn't do it. A couple of other lists I've been on have switched back
away from Google Groups because of the
Gary
On 8/19/07, Gary Thornock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Clint Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just don't use Google for domains!
>
> I'm wondering whether you mean that Google for domains would be a
> bad fit for this list, or whether you're recommending not using
> Google for domain
I'm ok with Google Groups.
-- Cole
Quoting Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
All,
I am toying with the idea of dropping Mailman for Google Groups and
would like some feedback from the group. Mailman is a nice, old friend
that has giving years of dedicated service to the community,
--- Clint Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just don't use Google for domains!
I'm wondering whether you mean that Google for domains would be a
bad fit for this list, or whether you're recommending not using
Google for domains at all.
In the former case, I completely agree. Google for domains
That's only if you forget to check the checkbox at the bottom of the
Admin page for Privacy called:
"Show member addresses so they're not directly recognizable as email
addresses? "
Check yes and you're good to go for your pre-existing archives as well
as future emails.
You can set that in your
On a side note:
On 8/19/07, Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> ... Plus the
> archives display your email address un-obsficated.
> ...
That's only if you forget to check the checkbox at the bottom of the
Admin page for Privacy called:
"Show member addresses so they're not di
Just don't use Google for domains!
I moved a few personal and family domains/emails accounts over this
weekend and have been in utter bliss. I haven't received a single
piece of Spam since the move.
I think if they actually integrated the functionality of Google
Groups it'd be a perfect
On 8/19/07, Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
>
> I am toying with the idea of dropping Mailman for Google Groups and
> would like some feedback from the group. Mailman is a nice, old
> friend that has giving years of dedicated service to the community,
> but his age is showing
I'm all for anything that makes a volunteer job easier and cheaper.
I use Google groups for a few other lists, and I like it just fine.
I have a question for you since you are an active Google Groups user:
On the "manage my memberships" screen [1], where you specify per-list
nickname, email,
On Aug 19, 2007, at 9:42 PM, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
What do you think?
I'm all for anything that makes a volunteer job easier and cheaper. I
use Google groups for a few other lists, and I like it just fine.
$google_groups++;
-- John
___
All,
I am toying with the idea of dropping Mailman for Google Groups and
would like some feedback from the group. Mailman is a nice, old
friend that has giving years of dedicated service to the community,
but his age is showing. Sure, once you get it configured and locked
down, it will ru
27 matches
Mail list logo
