Adrian Bye writes: > I felt at the time it was an important project. I was told it was > not, so I made it myself. And, it was refused to be added to the > main fork of mailman which was quite frustrating.
Actually, in the thread in the archives you were not told it was "unimportant", you were told it was a bad idea, that shouldn't be added to the Mailman mainline, and one prominent developer's bad experiences with a very similar system (which was implied to be more robust than yours is) were described. You didn't respond, so as far as I can see it was left out by default, not actually refused. There is a difference. I see no reason why the reasons for not adding the proposed feature given in that thread have been invalidated. If you have significant experience with successes with your system, and are willing to describe it, and are willing to address the perceived defects in the light of your experience, I'm sure your patch will be reconsidered. If you don't, declaring your patch to be "often requested" and "a necessary precondition for the resources needed to turn Mailman into a system capable of handling millions of messages a day" is not going to help your case. Another way to put it is the Mailman developers all have a lot of successful experience with the policy of implementing standards and best practices. There's no standard here so experience is crucial to demonstrating best practice. Please report yours! _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
