> As recommended in FAQ 5.4, use a 'dated' envelope sender address for > all recipients (whitelisted or not), with a longer timeout than 5 days.
Oh neat! Thanks for the tip. I think I did read that once-upon-a- time, but I must have forgotten it somewhere between my research and implementation phases. > > One problem you can get into in an extended reply-reply-reply > > conversation between TMDA users is having to confirm each message > > (assuming they all arrive with a different dated address). > > FAQ 4.5. Although I agree that actively maintaining a whitelist is effective with the current software, I still think that a better, more forward- looking plan involves changing the technology to cope with that situation. It's not a big deal for me to pop open an SSH terminal and edit my whitelist, but I currently have two users who know nothing about SSH, Linux, BASH, and CLI's. I could possibly train them to do these things themselves, but what happens when there are 100 TMDA users on a server? A 1000? My grandmother? FAQ 4.5 isn't the right answer for everyone, but I think this technology (or some eventual version of it) could be. Gre7g. ================================================================= Gre7g Luterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.templeofluna.com/ Stay informed: http://www.templeofluna.com/keeper/mailinglist.htm It's sad that a family can be torn apart by something as simple ...as a pack of wild dogs. _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
