J.A. Terranson wrote:
>
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
>> Yes, it probably should. It currently doesn't primarily because the
>> message metadata which contains the reason is not retrieved during
>> processing of actions from the admindb summary form. I think the
>> reason for this is h
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Yes, it probably should. It currently doesn't primarily because the
> message metadata which contains the reason is not retrieved during
> processing of actions from the admindb summary form. I think the
> reason for this is historical.
>
> I'm working on
Dennis Putnam wrote:
>
>I have more information on this that explains why I was confused about
>the sequence of events for processing mail to a list. It is not going
>to listname-bounces but rather going to mailman-bounces. The message is
>addressed to listn...@mydomain.com but winds up going to
>
I have more information on this that explains why I was confused about
the sequence of events for processing mail to a list. It is not going
to listname-bounces but rather going to mailman-bounces. The message is
addressed to listn...@mydomain.com but winds up going to
mail...@mydomain.com instead
J.A. Terranson wrote:
>
> If i reject a posting for exceeding size limits, the reason given
>will be "no reason given" if I reject using the default interface, and
>will only state the correct reason (too bog, please trim) if I reject from
>the "details" interface.
>
> This is both u
John Wesley Simpson Hibbs wrote:
>Our mailing lists had been processing bounces correctly for quite some
>time.
>
>For some reason though, this has stopped functioning properly.
Did you just upgrade to Mailman 2.1.11?
>Bounces were coming back to list-bounces+, and are now coming back
>to
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:15:43AM -0800, Jan Steinman wrote:
> I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent if it
> would reduce spam to near-zero.
This is a thoroughly-discredited, utterly broken idea which, unfortunately,
seems to keep coming back like a bad penny. It is
Good Morning,
If i reject a posting for exceeding size limits, the reason given
will be "no reason given" if I reject using the default interface, and
will only state the correct reason (too bog, please trim) if I reject from
the "details" interface.
This is both unintuitive a
