Scot Hacker wrote: > >On Oct 22, 2012, at 7:15 PM, Mark Sapiro <m...@msapiro.net> wrote: > >> Also, If the member to be added is already a member, I wouldn't change >> its delivery option. >> > >Hmm, not sure about that part - my implementation sometimes includes duplicate >addresses, relying on the mailman import to weed them out. So I would *prefer* >to have the option changed for existing members. But if that doesn't sit well >with you, I understand - my script will just have to be smarter about it.
I don't see this as a problem. If you try to add the same address twice with a --nomail option, the first add will succeed and set nomail and the second add will fail and do nothing, but the result is the address is added with nomail set. The only situation in which this makes a difference is if the address is already a member without nomail, which would only occur if it was added previously by some other process or if it was added previously and the user subsequently enabled delivery. Either way, I think the right thing is for add_members --nomail to not disable delivery for an existing member. Note, if you want to just set some or all users to nomail, see <http://www.msapiro.net/scripts/set_nomail.py>. -- Mark Sapiro <m...@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan _______________________________________________ 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
