Edward Muller wrote:
>On Friday 28 April 2006 21:55, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>>
>> Is admin_immed_notify on and if so, does the admin get notice of the
>> missing unsub requests?
>
>Yes.
I've taken a quick look through the code and done a couple of tests,
and I can't see the problem. I certainly have
Neal Groothuis wrote:
>
>Mailman is not the originator of the message, so it should
>not be tampering with the From: or Sender: fields at all.
This is arguably not true. Mailman may add a list header and/or list
footer to the body of the message as well as potentially filtering or
scrubbing vari
Mark Sapiro sent the message below at 15:39 5/1/2006:
> >Anyway, we then toggled the 2 lists we wanted back to private, but
> >searching Google I am able to find a couple posts.
>
>The posts were indexed in Google while the archive was public, but with
>a 'pipermail' URL that won't work. They will
Michael Urashka wrote:
>About a year ago I set up 3 lists. I was fairly certain I set
>up 2 of the lists as private and 1 as public.
I assume you're talking about archives here.
>A couple weeks ago
>we discovered that all three were set to public (looking in the web
>admin interface). Now I'm
About a year ago I set up 3 lists. I was fairly certain I set
up 2 of the lists as private and 1 as public. A couple weeks ago
we discovered that all three were set to public (looking in the web
admin interface). Now I'm not certain if somehow I didn't originally set
them private. We've upgraded Ma
Watching this with interest; a newbie learns...
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:27:40PM -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
> It might be appropriate for Mailman to add Resent-* headers, depending
> on how one reads RFC 2822, 3.6.6. I personally don't think it's
> necessary or useful, since list servers
I'd like to work up an unofficial diff to Mailman 2.1 for people like
Stephen who are willing to give it a try on a live site.
I'm not sure this is even necessary.
Ezmlm doesn't touch the Sender: header at all, Majordomo sets it to the
owner of the list, and (AFAICT) Listserv sets it to the
On Friday 28 April 2006 21:55, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Edward Muller wrote:
> >I know the unsubscription request was made because:
> >a) they show up in the 'vette' log
> >b) Some people are sending angry emails to the return address of the list.
>
> a) is good evidence. As far as b) is concerned, can
On 5/1/06 7:47 AM, "John W. Baxter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/30/06 1:28 AM, "Tony G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It seems I am getting duplicate messages from mailman v2.1.5 when senders
>> send
>> both TO and CC to the list. For some reason no one else in the list is
>> acknowledgin
On 4/30/06 1:28 AM, "Tony G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems I am getting duplicate messages from mailman v2.1.5 when senders send
> both TO and CC to the list. For some reason no one else in the list is
> acknowledging this issue so I look like an idiot complaining about it, but I'm
> seein
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 00:00 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Sender doesn't instruct *conformant* MTAs at all, does it? AFAIK the
> only thing that a RFC 2821-conforming MTA looks at is the Return-Path
> header, and it's supposed to remove that.
>
> So this is purely a matter of pragmatic sel
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 19:12 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> I think we need to gather a lot more information about the likely
> outcome from this change, and I think the best way to achieve this is
> through giving admins (either site admins or list admins) the ability
> to set an option and
12 matches
Mail list logo
