Re: [Mailman-Users] Is Mailman 2.1 not plushack aware?

2013-06-02 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Jun 02, 2013, at 02:45 PM, Bill Cole wrote: >> There is no reason that Mailman couldn't be enhanced with a > configurable >> *option* that would allow the domain Admin to *tell* it > which >> character(s) (there was recent talk on the postfix list of > postfix being >> enhanced to allow multipl

Re: [Mailman-Users] Is Mailman 2.1 not plushack aware?

2013-06-02 Thread Tanstaafl
On 2013-06-02 2:45 PM, Bill Cole wrote: Beyond a few formally standardized cases, assuming equivalency between different address local parts in a foreign domain is wrong in principle and bad in practice. You (and Mark) are correct of course. I only use Mailman for our local lists for our doma

Re: [Mailman-Users] Is Mailman 2.1 not plushack aware?

2013-06-02 Thread Bill Cole
On 2 Jun 2013, at 11:50, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-06-01 1:40 PM, Bill Cole wrote: It is altogether always wrong for ANY mail software outside of a domain to parse the local part of an address in that domain except for a tiny handful of standard special local parts (e.g. "postmaster"). On it

Re: [Mailman-Users] Is Mailman 2.1 not plushack aware?

2013-06-02 Thread Mark Sapiro
On 06/02/2013 08:50 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: > > There is no reason that Mailman couldn't be enhanced with a configurable > *option* that would allow the domain Admin to *tell* it which > character(s) (there was recent talk on the postfix list of postfix being > enhanced to allow multiple characters t

Re: [Mailman-Users] Custom Pages

2013-06-02 Thread Mark Sapiro
On 06/02/2013 08:23 AM, Janice Boothe wrote: > > > Maybe because I am not fully aware of il8n but I fail to see how that is an > issue. Mailman 2.1.15 supports 37 non-English translations. Mailman 2.1.16 will add Farsi to the list. Even assuming that switching to a template doesn't add or chan

Re: [Mailman-Users] Custom Pages

2013-06-02 Thread Steve Burling
On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Janice Boothe wrote: > Maybe because I am not fully aware of il8n but I fail to see how that is an > issue. I know fo other software that uses end user selectable language sets > and is highly customizable. Also the fact that a lot of the rest of MM uses > templa

Re: [Mailman-Users] Is Mailman 2.1 not plushack aware?

2013-06-02 Thread Tanstaafl
On 2013-06-01 1:40 PM, Bill Cole wrote: It is altogether always wrong for ANY mail software outside of a domain to parse the local part of an address in that domain except for a tiny handful of standard special local parts (e.g. "postmaster"). On it's own, I agree. The use of '+' as a tag del

Re: [Mailman-Users] Custom Pages

2013-06-02 Thread Janice Boothe
--- On Fri, 5/31/13, Mark Sapiro wrote: :> Yes I do mean that.  I used confirm.html since that is the naming :> convention used to create custom pages for much of the other IO of: :> Mailman. : :Some of Mailman's GUI web pages are built from templates such as :listinfo.html, options.html and s