On May 18, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Anne Wainwright wrote:
> For the record the following URL is of interest
>
> http://www.spamhaus.org/consumer/definition/
>
> This clearly makes the point that spam is defined by two factors
>
> "A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk"
>
> and be
Anne Wainwright wrote:
>
>As an aside, I have to ask whether the 'invite' feature in Mailman has a
>function. If one has to have been in existing contact such that you can
>ask them if they would not object to an invite then one is in fact at
>the point where you can ask them point blank if you can
Hi,
For the record the following URL is of interest
http://www.spamhaus.org/consumer/definition/
This clearly makes the point that spam is defined by two factors
"A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk"
and being who they are their definition must carry some weight. In terms
Hi,
Have been offline for a goodly while hence tardy response to the thread
that I started. comments lower down, but thanks to Brad, Richard, Mark,
& Stephen for their input.
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:33:24AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Anne Wainwright
>
Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is a Debian specific issue, look at:
>
>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506448
>
>Andrew.
Aaah! Thanks for the info.
--
Mark Sapiro
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
---
Hi,
This is a Debian specific issue, look at:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506448
Andrew.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.
From: Mark Sapiro [mailto:m...@msapiro.net]
Sent: 18 May 2012 20:27
To: Andrew Hodgson; mailman-users@python.org
Subject: RE: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration
>Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>>
>>One other question if I may:
>>
>>/bin/mv:
>>`/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/s
There was an issue in the tarballs I released for Mailman 2.1.15rc1.
They didn't include the updated version information so they installed as
version 2.1.14. This should not cause problems other than the version
displaying incorrectly. If the tarball was installed as an upgrade over
a 2.1.14 insta
Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>
>One other question if I may:
>
>When I run nightly_htdig -v to get the search engine updated, I get the
>following output:
>
>htdig'ing archive of list: bcab-board
>/bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db'
>and `/usr/local/mailman/archi
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
>
>--On 17. Mai 2012 12:58:11 -0700 Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
>>> I see that it's still calls itself 2.1.14. I hope I didn't miss
>>> anything..
>>
>>
>> Where do you see it identify itself as 2.1.14? If properly installed,
>> it should identify itself as 2.1.15rc1.
>
>Well, t
--On 17. Mai 2012 12:58:11 -0700 Mark Sapiro wrote:
I see that it's still calls itself 2.1.14. I hope I didn't miss
anything..
Where do you see it identify itself as 2.1.14? If properly installed,
it should identify itself as 2.1.15rc1.
Well, the web site still says 2.1.14 and I found this
Hi,
One other question if I may:
When I run nightly_htdig -v to get the search engine updated, I get the
following output:
htdig'ing archive of list: bcab-board
/bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db'
and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdi
From: Mark Sapiro [m...@msapiro.net]
Sent: 17 May 2012 23:43
To: Andrew Hodgson; mailman-users@python.org
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration
>Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>>
>>Everything works fine, but if someone posts to a list it appears that the
>>archive page gets re-generated w
13 matches
Mail list logo
