Re: [Mailman-Users] Moving / upgrading Mailman from Solaris to Linux

Ivan Fetch wrote: > >What issues have you had with their patches? E.G> the way they have fixed a >bug on their own? For example, the patch 30_pipermail_threads.patch fixes an obscure bug , but breaks indentation in the threaded archive index for messages with messa

Re: [Mailman-Users] Moving / upgrading Mailman from Solaris to Linux

Hello, Thank you, Mark, Adam, and Andrew for your replies. More below. > -Original Message- > From: Mark Sapiro [mailto:m...@msapiro.net] > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:19 AM > To: Ivan Fetch; MailMan > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Moving / upgrading Mailman from Solaris to > Li

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman blocks messages based on reply-to address

Rene Hamburger wrote: > >I am forwarding emails to a mailing list after I have included the original >sender's email as the reply-to address. It works fine as long as the >reply-to address is not on the actual email list. But when it is, mailman >recognises it as being moderated and blocks the emai

[Mailman-Users] Mailman blocks messages based on reply-to address

Hi everyone, I am forwarding emails to a mailing list after I have included the original sender's email as the reply-to address. It works fine as long as the reply-to address is not on the actual email list. But when it is, mailman recognises it as being moderated and blocks the email. Is that

Re: [Mailman-Users] Moving / upgrading Mailman from Solaris to Linux

Ivan Fetch wrote: >Hello, > >We are planning to move our Mailman installation from Solaris to Linux, >and upgrade in the process. I'd love to hear from anyone who has run >production Mailman on Linux. > >What experiences have list members had with RedHat vs. Ubuntu Mailman >packages, vs. compilin

Re: [Mailman-Users] Moving / upgrading Mailman from Solaris to Linux

Andrew Hodgson wrote: > >I am thinking of trying to build my own install for the reasons I outlined >above, the reasons I am holding off this are: > >1. Having to move everything out of the directory structure you get with the >Debian package. I'm not sure what the Debian directory structure i

Re: [Mailman-Users] Very simple content filtering

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > See the FAQ at . Ah, the FAQ to the rescue, much to my embarrassment. Thanks for a wonderful tool. John -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org h

Re: [Mailman-Users] Very simple content filtering

BBands wrote: > >Messages transmitted by the list are arriving with the >footer as an extension. (I am using the default footer text, which >serves my purpose well.) See the FAQ at . -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Califo

Re: [Mailman-Users] bad cron messages from mailman?

Mark Sapiro wrote: > The basic problem is you have installed a crontab as user mailman's > crontab which is designed to be installed as a system crontab in > /etc/cron.d. The crontab you have installed has a 6th field between > the five days and times fields and the command which for system > cro

Re: [Mailman-Users] Moving / upgrading Mailman from Solaris to Linux

Adam McGreggor wrote: >In such a case, you're reliant on the maintainer updating fixes >promptly (or very rarely, the security team), along with necessary >modifications to conform with Debian policy. Yes, I am still waiting for the latest Mailman security patch to be included in the stable Debi

Re: [Mailman-Users] Very simple content filtering

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > If you want to filter only based on attachment file name extension, set Thanks Mark, that's what I came too as well. Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree? I thought that my problem was my filtering settings, but maybe not. Messages transmitte

Re: [Mailman-Users] Moving / upgrading Mailman from Solaris to Linux

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:23:17PM -0700, Ivan Fetch wrote: > At this point, even though I prefer to use packages when possible, I am > leaning toward compiling Mailman from source because of: > 1. Red Hat packages are typically more ancient > 2. Ubuntu packages seem to include non-standard patche