no



On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:25:05 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Send Mailman-Users mailing list submissions to
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Mailman-Users digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: List configuration options, available now or
       not? (alex wetmore)
   2. Re: Wish List (Phydeaux)
   3. Re: Personal Trainer (J C Lawrence)
   4. Re: Wish List (Robert V. MacQuarrie)
   5. Re: List configuration options, available now or not? (J C Lawrence)
   6. upgrading sendmail broke mailman (Chris Murray)
   7. Re: Personal Trainer (Phydeaux)
   8. Re: Any way users can unsubscribe without a password? (Satya)
   9. Re: Personal Trainer (J C Lawrence)
  10. Re: Personal Trainer (Dave Melton)
  11. Re: Personal Trainer (Phydeaux)
  12. Mailman and CommunigatePro? (David Herren)
  13. Mailman & qmail sporadic message loss ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  14. Re: upgrading sendmail broke mailman (Chris Ryan)
  15. (no subject) (jean michel guiraud)


On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, JC Dill wrote:
> I have 2 outstanding questions about mailman configuration options:

I've answered these before.

> 1)  Does mailman have a configuration setting such that everyone who is 
> subscribed to a list can post unmoderated, but email from a non-subscriber 
> will be sent to a moderator for approval?
> 
> Yes or No?

Yes.

> 2)  Is [content filtering on the headers or body, to block messages that 
> are in reply to an entire digest] possible with mailman?  

Headers yes, body no (at least with 2.01).

alex






At 05:14 PM 3/30/2001 -0500, Robert V. MacQuarrie wrote:
>Absolutely the best mailing list manager I have ever used! Thanks!
>
>One feature I'd love to see added would be an option to allow new list
>members to only view archives from there joining date. For example, if
>user joins or is added on 3.30.2001 then they should only be able to view
>archives dated from that date and not before.

I fail to see why this would be at all useful. I find it's great when users
peruse the archives because it at least offers some slim hope that
the same question is not brought up again and again and again...

>[...] 3 of the discussion forms I maintain require a discussion on if said
>user should be added on not and members get to voice their opinions and
>concerns before the new user is added (if everyone agrees). I'm sure there
>could be other reasons for an option such as this aswell.

Hey -- it's ancient history... if the data is there and the new list member
wants to see it he is *going* to find a way (like ask a friend who is
also on the list but who has been there longer) ... from my experience
the best thing to do is to let everyone know that what they say will
be "on record."

IMHO this is likely to be much more trouble than it is worth.

>Again, thanks for a great list manager!

Agreed!

reb






On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:11:58 -0800 
chuq von rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Friday, March 30, 2001, at 11:05 AM, Ron Echeverri wrote:

>> I disagree.  Since we can't control spammers, perhaps we should
>> simply control ourselves, and instead of complaining about the
>> spam, we should simply delete it.  I

> If you go home at night and smell gas, do you solve the problem by
> deciding to smoke outside from now on? Or do you call a repairman
> to fix the gas leak?

Without questioning the boundaries of topic or religion on this one,
there's also the argument that allowing spammers to control and
alter our behaviour, and thereby granting them that power and
influence over us is fundamentally WRONG and that doing so is
tantamount to kowtowing to terrorists.

-- 
J C Lawrence                                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------(*)                          http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--





On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Phydeaux wrote:
>At 05:14 PM 3/30/2001 -0500, Robert V. MacQuarrie wrote:
>>Absolutely the best mailing list manager I have ever used! Thanks!
>>
>>One feature I'd love to see added would be an option to allow new list
>>members to only view archives from there joining date. For example, if
>>user joins or is added on 3.30.2001 then they should only be able to view
>>archives dated from that date and not before.
>
>I fail to see why this would be at all useful. I find it's great when users
>peruse the archives because it at least offers some slim hope that
>the same question is not brought up again and again and again...

These are very small discussion lists with perhaps 20 to 30 members. One
of the policies regarding membership is that what gets discussed on these
lists are not to be discussed with non-members and is grounds for
immediate removal.

>>[...] 3 of the discussion forms I maintain require a discussion on if said
>>user should be added on not and members get to voice their opinions and
>>concerns before the new user is added (if everyone agrees). I'm sure there
>>could be other reasons for an option such as this aswell.
>
>Hey -- it's ancient history... if the data is there and the new list member
>wants to see it he is *going* to find a way (like ask a friend who is
>also on the list but who has been there longer) ... from my experience
>the best thing to do is to let everyone know that what they say will
>be "on record."

Much of what was discussed on these lists is not 'ancient' history but
rather 'past' history and should only be viewed by those who took part in
the discussions of that time. Therefore the new member shouldn't be able
to read past archives.

I agree this option isnt for everyone but I could think of a number of
uses for it.

-Rob






On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:22:18 -0800 
JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 11:05 AM 3/30/01, Ron Echeverri wrote:
> 1) Does mailman have a configuration setting such that everyone
> who is subscribed to a list can post unmoderated, but email from a
> non-subscriber will be sent to a moderator for approval?

Yes.  This is an option under privacy options.

You can also configure a list so that only a named set of addresses
can post to the list, regardless of their subscription status.

> To let some non-subscribers post without moderation (a practice
> that I personally feel has dubious value, since their question
> might be answered in a post to the list, perhaps in response to
> someone else asking the same question, but they won't see it
> because they aren't subscribed), how about implementing simple
> filter so that if a non-subscriber's post mentions one or more
> keywords, let it through to the list unmoderated, otherwise it
> goes to the moderator?

This is currently not possible under Mailman alone.  It quite easy
to do however via, say, a combo of procmail and mailman.

> 2) Is [content filtering on the headers or body, to block messages
> that are in reply to an entire digest] possible with mailman?

Yes, within the minor limitations of regular expressions.

-- 
J C Lawrence                                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------(*)                          http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--





I just upgraded my list server from sendmail 8.9.3 to sendmail 8.11.3 and now I am 
getting errors from smrsh about wrapper not available for sendmail programs.

smrsh: wrapper not available for sendmail programs
554 5.0.0 "|/home/mailman/mail/wrapper post listname" ....

any ideas what I should look at to fix this? I have compiled into my cf support for 
smrsh and have a link in /etc/smrsh to /home/mailman/mail/wrapper

Thanks - Chris

======================================
Chris Murray
Network Services Specialist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph: 604-606-8988   Fax: 604-606-8998

Stargate Connections, Inc.
http://www.stargate.ca/
======================================






At 03:29 PM 3/30/2001 -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
>Without questioning the boundaries of topic or religion on this one,
>there's also the argument that allowing spammers to control and
>alter our behaviour, and thereby granting them that power and
>influence over us is fundamentally WRONG and that doing so is
>tantamount to kowtowing to terrorists.

I think putting bombs on airplanes is WRONG! Allowing terrorists
to make us scared and control and alter our behaviour, thereby granting
them power and influence over us is fundamentally WRONG!
So, we should ignore them and ban all airport security systems
because that's just part of caving in to the terrorists' demands...

reb

"If I ignore the future, maybe it will go away!"






On Mar 30, 2001 at 10:52, Mario Pacheco wrote:

>I would like to put Mailman to use in an organization I'm 
>doing some work for *however* there is too much resistance 
>to the idea of requiring users to provide a password to 
>unsubscribe.

Will this do what you want?

http://satya.virtualave.net/download.html#mailmanw

-- 
Satya. <URL:http://satya.virtualave.net/>
US-bound grad students! For pre-apps, see <URL:http://quickapps.cjb.net/>
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.







On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:24:30 -0500 
reb  <Phydeaux> wrote:

> At 03:29 PM 3/30/2001 -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> Without questioning the boundaries of topic or religion on this
>> one, there's also the argument that allowing spammers to control
>> and alter our behaviour, and thereby granting them that power and
>> influence over us is fundamentally WRONG and that doing so is
>> tantamount to kowtowing to terrorists.

> I think putting bombs on airplanes is WRONG! Allowing terrorists
> to make us scared and control and alter our behaviour, thereby
> granting them power and influence over us is fundamentally WRONG!

Agreed.

> So, we should ignore them and ban all airport security systems
> because that's just part of caving in to the terrorists'
> demands...

Being cognizant of one's environment is one thing; thus awareness of
terrorist situations and methods of control for them is not an
unreasonable action.  Allowing terrorist threat to modify an
otherwise desirable and reasonable action is another.  Not looking
both ways when crossing the street is simply silly.  Not crossing
the street because the possiblity exists that one may be struck by a
vehicle is also silly.

-- 
J C Lawrence                                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------(*)                          http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--






Let's develop the analogy here...

An airport security system can be likened to restricting posts 
to list subscribers.  Sure, we all have to stand in line and 
occasionally empty our pockets before we can get on a plane.  
This is a minor inconvenience, but a lot less annoying than 
getting blown out of the sky.

If only subscribers could post to the list, then people would 
have to take the extra two minutes to subscribe before they post
their questions.  They could easily unsub or select nomail after
they get what they need.  This doesn't seem like much of a 
"penalty" to get the great support (for a free product!) that 
this list provides.

While we're on the subject...spammers, hackers and terrorists
should all be shot on sight.

- Dave


On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Phydeaux wrote:

> At 03:29 PM 3/30/2001 -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> >Without questioning the boundaries of topic or religion on this one,
> >there's also the argument that allowing spammers to control and
> >alter our behaviour, and thereby granting them that power and
> >influence over us is fundamentally WRONG and that doing so is
> >tantamount to kowtowing to terrorists.
> 
> I think putting bombs on airplanes is WRONG! Allowing terrorists
> to make us scared and control and alter our behaviour, thereby granting
> them power and influence over us is fundamentally WRONG!
> So, we should ignore them and ban all airport security systems
> because that's just part of caving in to the terrorists' demands...
> 
> reb






At 05:53 PM 3/30/2001 -0800, Dave Melton wrote:

>Let's develop the analogy here...
>
>An airport security system can be likened to restricting posts
>to list subscribers.  Sure, we all have to stand in line and
>occasionally empty our pockets before we can get on a plane.
>This is a minor inconvenience, but a lot less annoying than
>getting blown out of the sky.
>
>If only subscribers could post to the list, then people would
>have to take the extra two minutes to subscribe before they post
>their questions.  They could easily unsub or select nomail after
>they get what they need.  This doesn't seem like much of a
>"penalty" to get the great support (for a free product!) that
>this list provides.

Also, *VOLUNTEER* list administrators could sort the
wheat from the chaff and allow legitimate posts from non-members
onto the list, removing the subscription requirement completely!

>While we're on the subject...spammers, hackers and terrorists
>should all be shot on sight.

To quote from the "Cult of father Darwin" list...

         Let us prey...

                 reb






Does anyone have any experience using Mailman with CommunigatePro from
Stalker Software? CGPro also has some list functionality, but I am already
running a number of lists with Mailman that I am loathe to have to move (to
say nothing of the fact that the list functionality in CGPro costs money I
don't have...)

Please copy me directly as I'm a digester...

/david

--
david herren    |   In an Internet without doors,
shoreham, vt    |   who needs Windows or Gates?






I run a set of mailing lists using mailman and qmail.  I've got the lists set up fine, 
everything is running smoothly, except that sometimes people complain that they didn't 
receive a particluar message, while others have received it.  It has happened on more 
than one list, and with different members, so I think mailman is suspect.

I've looked in the qmail and mailman logs but haven't been able to pick up any errors. 
 I've searched google, read the docs, and skimmed the last 3 motnhs of this mailing 
list with no luck.  Has anyone ever seen a problem like this, or can anyone point me 
in the right direction?  Thanks.

I'm running Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 - here are my versions:

ii@host:~$ uname -a
Linux host 2.2.14-va.4.4-i586 #1 Tue Sep 5 15:18:51 PDT 2000 i686 unknown
ii@host:~$ dpkg -l | pgrep '(mailman)|(qmail)|(python)|(apache)'
ii  apache         1.3.14-2       Versatile, high-performance HTTP server
ii  apache-common  1.3.14-2       Support files for all Apache webservers
ii  libapache-mod- 2.7.1-1        Strong cryptography for Apache
ii  libapache-mod- 2.7.1-1        Documentation for Apache module mod_ssl
ii  mailman        2.0final-1     Powerful, web based list processor
ii  python-base    1.5.2-10       An interactive object-oriented scripting lan
ii  python-zlib    1.5.2-10       A compression module for Python using zlib.
ii  qmail          1.03-14        Secure, reliable, efficient, simple mail tra
ii  qmail-src      1.03-14        Source only package for building qmail binar






Chris,

    You need to change you /etc/aliases files to point to the symlink
wrapper in /etc/smrsh so:

my-list: "|/home/mailman/mail/wrapper post my-list"

    should be:

my-list: "|/etc/smrsh/wrapper post my-list"

hope this helps.

Chris Ryan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:12 PM
Subject: [Mailman-Users] upgrading sendmail broke mailman


> I just upgraded my list server from sendmail 8.9.3 to sendmail 8.11.3 and
now I am getting errors from smrsh about wrapper not available for sendmail
programs.
>
> smrsh: wrapper not available for sendmail programs
> 554 5.0.0 "|/home/mailman/mail/wrapper post listname" ....
>
> any ideas what I should look at to fix this? I have compiled into my cf
support for smrsh and have a link in /etc/smrsh to
/home/mailman/mail/wrapper
>
> Thanks - Chris
>
> ======================================
> Chris Murray
> Network Services Specialist
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ph: 604-606-8988   Fax: 604-606-8998
>
> Stargate Connections, Inc.
> http://www.stargate.ca/
> ======================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Mailman-Users maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users






i have found a source via-rhine.c on your server but i don t see the header file via-rhine.h included
thank you for your answer


------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users



Reply via email to