Re: [Mailman-Users] FW: using swish-e searching with mailman lists

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Jack Valko wrote: > > Is this worth reworking for Mailman 2? > > Jack I think the only change would be a new diff against HyperArch.py. I have followed your instructions and (think I) have it working on my site. But I noticed swish-e is s l o w to index my archives. Have

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:15:19 -0800 Ed Lazor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All of it over the fact that I believe in FREEDOM. At no point has your's or other's freedom been constrained or curtailed. You and everyone else remain just as free as you ever were to edit the sources to make Mailman be

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>When can we expect your patch for the FAQ? I sent out a full listing of the changes I made to remove the headers last week. If someone else would like to create a patch, that would be great, because I don't know how to. This is one of the reasons why I was hoping to appeal to people on the

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On 2/15/01 4:28 PM, "Dan Mick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's a sad state of affairs when the value of a law or standard becomes >> greater than the concerns of the people it's supposed to support. > > Ed, you are free to modify Open Source software. Heck, I'll go further. It's a sad state

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:06:40 -0800 Ed Lazor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We have different definitions of "unreasonable". I consider that >> not requiring your members to such is not only unreasonable, but >> foolhardy. YMMV. > Having different definitions is fine. I respect your opinion.

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>We have different definitions of "unreasonable". I consider that >not requiring your members to such is not only unreasonable, but >foolhardy.YMMV. Having different definitions is fine. I respect your opinion. I'm also glad I don't follow all of the proposed standards on the net and for

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

> >Right. So let's add an entry to the FAQ: > > > >Q: How do I remove the List-* headers from Mailman's mail? > >A: You don't. > > It's a sad state of affairs when the value of a law or standard becomes > greater than the concerns of the people it's supposed to support. Ed, you are free to mo

[Mailman-Users] Re: [Mailman-Developers] Bounce questions

> Two questions: > > 1.Whats the difference between a "first" and a "first fresh" in the bounce > log? I looked for "first fresh" in the Python source and found this comment: # There's been enough posts since last bounce that we're # restarting. (Might shou

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:41:08 -0800 Ed Lazor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a sad state of affairs when the value of a law or standard > becomes greater than the concerns of the people it's supposed to > support. As always this is a question of audiences, and the perceived definition of the d

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ed Lazor wrote: > It's a sad state of affairs when the value of a law or standard becomes > greater than the concerns of the people it's supposed to support. It's a sad state of affairs when you can't tell the difference between addressing people's concerns and following thei

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:42:49 -0800 Ed Lazor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes > to make? When can we expect your patch for the FAQ? -- J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] -(*)

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:17:35 -0800 Ed Lazor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I mentioned last week, forcing mailing list admins to make > their subscribers switch email clients or make modifications to > their current email clients is unreasonable. We have different definitions of "unreasonable"

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>Right. So let's add an entry to the FAQ: > >Q: How do I remove the List-* headers from Mailman's mail? >A: You don't. It's a sad state of affairs when the value of a law or standard becomes greater than the concerns of the people it's supposed to support. --

[Mailman-Users] Header/Footer Solution needed

I would like the header/footer to rotate with a different meesage each time a Digest is sent out. Has anyone done a modification that allows this. Thanks Thomas -- Mailman-Users maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

> "again and again" sounds like a FAQ to me. Right. So let's add an entry to the FAQ: Q: How do I remove the List-* headers from Mailman's mail? A: You don't. -- Mailman-Users maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/lis

Re: [Mailman-Users] admin interface "stalling" for some lists

Once you get one dead process that's left a lockfile around, all the rest of them are going to back up on that lockfile until it's removed. You need to find out why that first person is dying (or why the cgi script is dying when that person accesses it). The strace shows the 2-n'th processes' n

Re: [Mailman-Users] Held Message for "implicit address"

No, "implicit" means "someone Bcc'ed the list" (i.e. the list address doesn't appear in To: or Cc:). The simple answer is to change that setting. The more-complex answer, if that's not the case, is to change the Alias setting. The even-more-complex answer is "perhaps someone sent it to a name t

Re: [Mailman-Users] fund management[private & confidential]

At 03:18 PM 2/14/01 -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote: > >There is a better option. >Since the python.org folks run exim 3.21, they could stick this >in their exim.conf: >-- >sender_verify_hosts_callback = /etc/mail/badsendinghosts:* >s

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>Well, (a) it's a rarely-asked, not frequently-asked, question, and (b) it >will slow adoption of the RFC. If it's a rarely-asked question, then posting something for those who do ask should be seen as a step towards customer service and present no threat to adoption of the RFC. I originally

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ed Lazor wrote: >> How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes to make? > >Well, (a) it's a rarely-asked, not frequently-asked, question, and (b) it >will slow adoption of the RFC. The question that drove the FAQ request above was: >HOWEVER, since the

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>> How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes to make? > > Well, (a) it's a rarely-asked, not frequently-asked, question, and (b) it > will slow adoption of the RFC. And because it's the wrong thing to do, and I don't want to see it encouraged or supported, even implicitly

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On 2/15/01 1:22 PM, "Phydeaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do we *really* have to go through this again and again? I think so, mostly because people don't care about what ought to be and why it is, but what they want. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [<[EMAIL PROTE

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ed Lazor wrote: > How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes to make? Well, (a) it's a rarely-asked, not frequently-asked, question, and (b) it will slow adoption of the RFC. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>HOWEVER, since the source code is freely available, you have it within >your power to modify it and remove the offending lines of code that >generate the "extra" headers. > >Do we *really* have to go through this again and again? How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

At 01:09 PM 2/15/2001 -0800, Ed Lazor wrote: >>I use Eudora at home all the time, though, and it DOESN'T show these >>headers by default... > >This is because you've upgraded Eudora to the most recent version and / or >made changes to the TabooHeaders parameter in the eudora.ini >file. Right?

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>I use Eudora at home all the time, though, and it DOESN'T show these >headers by default... This is because you've upgraded Eudora to the most recent version and / or made changes to the TabooHeaders parameter in the eudora.ini file. Right? And if that's the case, are you suggesting people

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ed Lazor wrote: > From feedback I've received, it appears Eudora is the most widely used MUA > showing these headers. I think a few people were using old versions of > pine, dtmail, and Netscape Navigator. I'd have to double check to verify > this, but I hope that helps. T

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>One question that has been asked repeatedly of the people on your side if >this question and never answered: what MUAs show these headers by default? From feedback I've received, it appears Eudora is the most widely used MUA showing these headers. I think a few people were using old versions

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ed Lazor wrote: > As I also mentioned last week, it's better to support the standard in a way > that also supports the users of mailman. This can be done by adding the > new headers to mailman and making their use optional. Best of all, this > will avoid problems like the on

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

>The users should not be shown these headers by a sane MUA. If your MUA >is forcing these headers on users then it is non-RFC compliant and >should be taken out and shot. Aren't these headers part of the "proposed" RFC? If so, you can't call the MUA non-RFC compliant, since the proposal hasn'

Re: [Mailman-Users] Held Message for "implicit address"

Perhaps you have an alias for your group name that's different from what mailman thinks the list is named. Look on the "Privacy Options" page for "Alias names which qualify as explicit to or cc destination names for this list." Best regards, Mojo On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, HarryStyron wrote: > What

[Mailman-Users] Held Message for "implicit address"

What does "implicit address" mean in the administrative hold message? I run a series of lists for different groups. Most of them are set for subscriber only posting. At the moment my subscribers are complaining that all of their traffic is held (and I'm complaining, too!) which it is, with the

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > The Mailman headers are very verbose, is there a way to set the config > so it is less obnoxious for the users? I am not using sendmail for > anything else on this machine. We are using Mailman 2.0.1 on RedHat > 7.1. The users should not be shown these headers by a s

[Mailman-Users] Mail headers with Mailman

Hi, The Mailman headers are very verbose, is there a way to set the config so it is less obnoxious for the users? I am not using sendmail for anything else on this machine. We are using Mailman 2.0.1 on RedHat 7.1. -elly - Return-Pat

Re: [Mailman-Users] serious gid problem

I had this problem too, and I found a solution. Basically, I had to tell my MTA (Postfix, in my case) to execute external programs as the same user I specified with --with-mail-gid. So for example, if you did --with-mail-gid=mailman, then you need to somehow reconfigure Sendmail to execute exter

[Mailman-Users] New List, new admin

I have taken on a mailman installation with two working mailing lists. I am attempting to add a third, and did so following the instructions, and using the two existing lists as examples. The list is created, I get my admin email, go to the site and register only to have the mail bounce with th

[Mailman-Users] RE: Mailman-Users digest, Vol 1 #1035 - 15 msgs

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 10:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mailman-Users digest, Vol 1 #1035 - 15 msgs Send Mailman-Users mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTEC

[Mailman-Users] serious gid problem

hello all :) recently i upgrade the mailman version beta2 for beta5. in beta2 all work. but now, i'm get the error "wanted gid 501, got gid 65535. reconfigure?". i know who need recompile for gid 65535 with the parameter with-mail-gid. but i can't put the mailman in the group 65535. what is happe

[Mailman-Users] admin interface "stalling" for some lists

Hi, I checked the archives before and found two other users with the same problem, but sadly no answer. Maybe this time... For a specific list, the admin interface just doesn't work. Either I get a 503 error or a timeout. A ps ax|grep python shows many processes on the server: 12994 ?S

[Mailman-Users] Help me my User name and password

-- Mailman-Users maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users

[Mailman-Users] comments plz: mailman as single accounts?

Hey List... What do you think and got any known tips/hints on using mailman as a business/office "single-user mail server" interface in addition to its "real" purpose? By this I mean, for example, new employee comes in, I say go to URL so and so and subscribe. Once done, the request would go to a