Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:46:57 -0500 Joel Votaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmm, the README says that script only currently works with > unsubscribe requests, but does not handle subscribe requests. Is > there any way to subscribe without supplying a password? If you subscribe by mail as versu

RE: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

> -Original Message- > From: Chuq Von Rospach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Computers are cheap. Bandwidth isn't necessarily cheap. I > run with a > > very high chunking factor because my MTA properly handles it > > But -- if this went away, what would it do to your bandwidth? Ar

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 08:29:50 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday, June 17, 2001, at 06:21 AM, alex wetmore wrote: >> I would argue that it should default to OFF > I'm not surprised. It's Barry's call, but I think the customized > URL is useful enough we want people to

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:46:47 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 01:19 PM, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > I would set Mailman's 2.1 default to have this turned ON... Agreed. > Barry's mileage may vary on his preferences for default, of > course, and it's

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Sunday, June 17, 2001, at 06:21 AM, alex wetmore wrote: > Please don't make this assumption. It is true for the commonly used > Unix MTAs, but it is not true for all MTAs. you're misreading what I was doing here -- I'm looking at this based on how it goes over the wire, not how it's delive

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > For this 55%, the SMTP=1 is 6050K. For 100, it's 1711K bytes. That's 28% > of the first number, so we're cutting 72% of the bandwidth by chunking > at 100. The tradeoff is performance, though -- it takes a lot longer to > deliver those AOL addresses,

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 01:19 PM, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > CVR> points. but we need to quantify what those points are and > CVR> what the impact is, so we can decide just how to move forward > CVR> on this. > I'd love to see any statistic you (or anybody) gathers on this > subj

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 01:19 PM, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > CVR> so people know how to tune their systems. And if it's 60%, > CVR> maybe we shouldn't do it.. > > CVR> but we need to figure out what the impact is, and not guess > CVR> or make assumptions... > > I'd love to see

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 12:30 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > Would it be so bad if the Mailman FAQ/README read as follows? > > If you are having performance problems and are using sendmail, > don't bitch to us. I'd be more political about it. Something like: We have found that sendmail h

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 12:44:24AM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > I think that's overkill, though. My observation is that people who don't > notice the header are unlikely to notice much of anything, including > sending them the instructions on parchment with gold ink carried by a > naked ves

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Saturday, June 16, 2001, at 12:58 AM, J C Lawrence wrote: > I'm also kinda keen on putting a themes engine on Mailman -- montly > a file-extracted form of headers/footers/tokens ala your mod_layout > thing. > sort of like my signature randomizer. kewl. >> At some point, you have to decide i

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:44:24 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday, June 16, 2001, at 12:40 AM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> My observation is that putting the same reminder at the in every >> message footer is immediately ignored. Making the footer rotate >> among N variat

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Saturday, June 16, 2001, at 12:40 AM, J C Lawrence wrote: > My observation is that putting the same reminder at the in every > message footer is immediately ignored. Making the footer rotate > among N variations, I think that's overkill, though. My observation is that people who don't noti

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:29:22 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 12:24 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >>> ... it has to be in every message. >> Really? > If it's not in the message the user is looking at when they make > the decision to unsubscribe, it's n

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 03:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Where then will you put the list submission address? for the lists I'm talking about, thre is none. These are e-newsletters. This isn't my mailman system. Sorry if it's not clear. This is my big server. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Inte

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 12:26 PM, alex wetmore wrote: > > Computers are cheap. Bandwidth isn't necessarily cheap. I run with a > > very high chunking factor because my MTA properly handles it > > But -- if this went away, what would it do to yo

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > we've made the decision that all of our mail systems are going to be > sent individually. I'm planning on putting the subscribed address back > in the To: line Where then will you put the list submission address? (Putting it _only_ into List-Post:

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 12:24 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> Me, I see VERP as an afterthought. > > I tend to classify the various forms of "do something member unique > to each message as VERP" as they share similar system load issues. I do the same, but it's a habit I'm trying to break, beca

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 01:38 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote: > When running majordomo lists, I always had the unsubscribe information > right in the message footer. Would it be so hard to do that with the > ? we're talking about going beyond that

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 12:29:22PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 12:24 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > > >> ... it has to be in every message. > > > > Really? > > If it's not in the message the user is looking at when they make the > decision to unsubscribe, it's no

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CVR> to a good degree by programming to the lowest common CVR> denominator. Maybe it's time to re-think that, so we can take CVR> advantage of some features, while still keeping a 'generic' CVR> module for the other MTAs

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CVR> I'm not saying Alex is wrong -- he's got some good CVR> points. but we need to quantify what those points are and CVR> what the impact is, so we can decide just how to move forward CVR> on this. If the impact is, oh

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 12:20 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > Fair dinkum. A potential issue is that it is MTA dependent in > addition is it? I guess I'm missing the connection. > To date Mailman is quite MTA agnostic. > to a good degree by programming to the lowest common denominator. Maybe

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 12:24 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> ... it has to be in every message. > > Really? If it's not in the message the user is looking at when they make the decision to unsubscribe, it's not very useful, any more than the "monthly posting with unsubscribe information in i

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 12:26 PM, alex wetmore wrote: > Computers are cheap. Bandwidth isn't necessarily cheap. I run with a > very high chunking factor because my MTA properly handles it But -- if this went away, what would it do to your bandwidth? Are you paying by packet? If not, the

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:38:12 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The real issue here, IMHO, is likely ot be the wonderful > sendmail/DNS lookup on acceptance delay issue. And I'd suggest the > way to fix that is to fix the Sendmail module, and have it use > -Odeliverymode=defer.

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Is it really? Most of us are already setting that chunking factor very > small (5-10) for performance purposes. Moving it from 10 to 1 isn't > really all that significant, and it's only an issue where people are > already stressing server or network c

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:59:51 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 11:34 AM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> VERP is interesting. I'd argue that allowing Mailman to only >> apply VERP (or VERP-like techniques) to every Nth post to every >> Q'th list member is

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:01:15 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 11:37 AM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> Mailman has a large penetration in small under-weight >> systems/sites. Its the whole -t-does-everything deal which is >> particularly attractive to no

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 11:34 AM, J C Lawrence wrote: > VERP is interesting. I'd argue that allowing Mailman to only apply > VERP (or VERP-like techniques) to every Nth post to every Q'th list > member is the most interesting case, both for bounce handling and > human unsubscribe/listinfo

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 11:37 AM, J C Lawrence wrote: > Mailman has a large penetration in small under-weight systems/sites. > Its the whole -t-does-everything deal which is particularly > attractive to novice/small sites. I'd dislike seeing that quality > lost. > but will what we are pro

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 11:12 AM, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > That's what I wanted to know! If I understand one thing, its that my > own demands on Mailman are heavily skewed to the atypical lists I run, > the systems I run it on, and the kinds of tasks it forces on me. So > getting other po

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:12:07 -0400 Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, or too curmudgeonly, but my > inclination would be to disable this by default, but allow a sys > admin to turn it on if they want. Precisely -- an option in Defaults.py that an admin

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:58:55 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it really? Most of us are already setting that chunking factor > very small (5-10) for performance purposes. Moving it from 10 to 1 > isn't really all that significant, and it's only an issue where > people are a

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:10:14 -0400 Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The biggest hangup I've had with this approach is that it requires > Mailman to send N number of messages to the MTA, where N is the > number of members, as opposed to the currently 1 message it now > sends (modulo ch

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

BAW> That's always seemed a big pill to swallow, > "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CVR> Is it really? Most of us are already setting that chunking CVR> factor very small (5-10) for performance purposes. Moving it CVR> from 10 to 1 isn't really all that

Re: [Mailman-Users] Allowing users to join without specifying pas swords

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 10:10 AM, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > I'm not so concerned about security. I figure that if we're crafting > a message for UserA, we can generate a unique url for that user to > click on to unsubscribe. Sure someone could intercept the email (and > probably does ;), b