At 09:06 PM 3/6/99 -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote:
>* One capability I gave Listar quite some time back was the ability to
> decode alternative mail formats. (In Listar's terminology, it's called
> 'humanize-mime'.) This basically ensures that any posts to a list
> with humanize-mime set true are in a nice, standard plaintext format,
> and do not include binary attachments. (Attachments that are a
> recognizable text format will be decoded and added to the main message
> body.) While I feel this is a useful option, I have heard one or two
> complaints (usually from people who like to post binary files), that
> this is a violation of their 'right to post in whatever format they
> want'. While the majority of users have not be displeased with the
> option (and some are in fact overjoyed it's there), I was curious if
> any of the list maintainers out there thought that stripping binary
> attachments was an ETHICAL problem?
They should get over it. There is no ethical issue about doing this. In
fact, I do it - had I discovered listar before I wrote demime, I would
probably have saved myself some work.
>* Password, versus other methods of authentication. I lean towards a
> 'cookie' method similar to Majordomo's subscription confirmation
> tickets. This has the advantage of not requiring an administrator
> to remember a password, and is less readily spoofable. It has the
> downside, however, of requiring two mail messages per administrative
> session. (One to retrieve the 'wrapper' for an admin session, and one
> to submit it back and have it processed.) Do other list admins
> prefer a password method that requires only one message, or a more
> secure method that requires two messages per admin session and doesn't
> require a password to be memorized?
Before I know this, I wonder if it is possible to easily batch commands
using the cookie method? For example, I just subscribed a bunch of people
to one list by making a shell one liner that inserted passwords and
subscribed them. Can I do that easily with cookies?
>* Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list. A good thing,
> or a bad thing? It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
> isn't that useful for qmail or Postfix. It also tends to be less
> memory-efficient. My opinion is that it should be an option (since
> sendmail IS fairly common), but disable-able for qmail and Postfix
> installations, which do their own queue optimization.
Why is it ever bad? Because the sort for large lists represents a memory
usage bubble? In my case, I don't think it would matter.
--
Pasta is really just kibble, boiled until soft.
Nick Simicich mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or (last choice)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!
