> "MG" == Mark Geisinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MG> On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 7:41:41 AM, you wrote:
>> That should be fixed in MM2.1 final. You'll get just one
>> response.
MG> Very cool, Barry. Thanks much!
No problem!
-Barry
---
On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 7:41:41 AM, you wrote:
> That should be fixed in MM2.1 final. You'll get just one response.
Very cool, Barry. Thanks much!
--
Best regards,
Mark
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Mailman-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED
> "MG" == Mark Geisinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MG> If someone comes by and subscribes to four lists, they receive
MG> eight messages. What's the point?
To kill them with kindness? :)
In MM2.1, each list is still a separate entity. Mailman doesn't know
that they just subscribe
On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, 12:30:45 AM, you wrote:
> And we've had in 2.0.x subscribers fail to confirm because (as of 2.0.6,
> anyhow), the request could easily be misread as an acknowledgement. We hacked
> the message a little to make it more obvious. (Old news now.)
Darn pesky users. ;} I
At 22:35 -0600 12/30/2002, Mark Geisinger wrote:
>My point is a) that traffic for subscription confirms is redundant, and b)
>it's
>actually confusing subscribers. Since moving from v2.0.13, where this behavior
>didn't exist, I've actually had a number of folks miss the purpose of the
>subscription
Sunday, December 29, 2002, 2:06:27 PM, you wrote:
>> "MG" == Mark Geisinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MG> Is autorespond_requests broken in 2.1x, or do I perhaps
> MG> misunderstand its purpose? I'm using 2.1b4 and would like to
> MG> avoid having a request autoresponse sent t
> "MG" == Mark Geisinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MG> Is autorespond_requests broken in 2.1x, or do I perhaps
MG> misunderstand its purpose? I'm using 2.1b4 and would like to
MG> avoid having a request autoresponse sent to a subscribe
MG> request, or for any other request.
