I've been in lurk mode for quite some time, but I have to throw in my $0.02. As an admin of several
busy servers, and mailman lists that send out close to a million emails per week, I can say that I
don't have the time to deal with trying to create a new interface. I made my own cheat sheet of how
to install Mailman on my servers, which already is not a simple process. But from my gatherings
here, MM3 will -not- be a drop-in replacement, which is what I would need. It seems like there is a
lot of stuff to configure, different packages, etc... And if there's no web GUI? That's useless to
me. I'll be sticking with MM 2.x until MM3 -is- a drop-in replacement, in whatever form that comes in.
Its nice that there all these hooks into different parts of the program. But if it doesn't do what
MM 2.x did out of the box, its not going to fly.
Suggestion: work on a self-contained complete solution. If people want to enhance and extend, then
let them at the full MM 3 system. But I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting the least amount of software
needed to run the package. I don't want more servers (processes). I need secure, low-footprint, low
cpu-utilization processes.
Bob
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Patrick Ben Koetter writes:
> I think if we release MM3 without 'a frontend' we will miss
> people's expectation to get a feature complete MLM - which includes
> a frontend in most peoples opinion I guess.
I agree on the basis of introspection (which is obviously a
statistically biased sample), and pretty clearly the people who are
currently posting "will I get feature X if I use Mailman 3" aren't
thinking "I don't mind if I lose features Y, Z, and W, too" when they
do.
It's possible that there's a vast silent majority who understand the
implications of the regular statement that "Mailman 3 will not be a
front end, but rather front ends will communicate with Mailman 3 via a
RESTful interface". Even if so, I think the "what were they thinking,
releasing without a bundled front end!?" crowd is going to be large,
and they will leave and will not come back soon. In particular, I
doubt we'll get any interest from cPanel et al[1], which to date has
been an important way that Mailman gets introduced to people.
Footnotes:
[1] They don't strike me as being creative enough to figure out that
this means they can write their own proprietary front end.
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
Mailman-Developers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/bob%40nleaudio.com
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
Mailman-Developers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
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://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
