Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> > But it isn't working, that's the point. It's ambiguous and
> > unneccessary to have two addresses for the list and every now and
> > then there are duplicate messages
>
> so you want a postfix config change with smtpd_recipient_restrictions
> gaining an check_recipient_access with the old @opensc-project.org
> addresses listed with REJECT "Some nice information" ?
Yes that works too, though my preference would be without lists.
The subject is, after all, "Canonical mailing list address."
> shouldn't be much work. If you haven't updated the email address in
> your contact list for that many years, this could force you do to that.
I find lists. counterintuitive and ugly. But if it's the true way
then I think it's better to enforce it yes. :)
> > And it's also much prettier to not have the extra lists. after @.
>
> you want to annoy all the people that did update to the new email
> address in favor of a handfull of people that didn't? not a nice move.
I guess I never understood why lists. was added to begin with.
Anything to do with mailman is a bad reason IMO.
> > I don't think it needs to. At a minimum there should be forwards like
> > there is now, just in the other direction. There could even be some
> > rewriting (procmail+formail or such) for the @lists. addresses.
>
> wow, that will be such a much better situation. instead of gettign A
> and a duplicate B you will get B and a duplicate A?
At a minimum, so that nothing gets worse. But hopefully the situation
can be improved - regardless of which actually is the canonical
address. Separate issues.
> > Misunderstanding. I mean does anyone receive email to an address
> > @opensc-project.org that is not for one of the lists?
>
> in the past every developer had an email alias @opensc-project.org,
> and a few people still use them. also there is bugs@ and webmaster@
> etc.
Cool. Since there aren't too many then it would not be so difficult
to move to another MX if there's the desire at some point.
> why annoy everyone with a change that (at least it looks to me)
> will not improve the situation at all?
I'm sorry that you find it annoying.
The motivations are, again:
* to have one canonical mailing list address
+ meaning that mail to other addresses has some handling
to help guide posters to the canonical address (ie. something
better than current forwarding)
* without lists. is more intuitive, shorter, and prettier, to me
> we could simply drop the old email addresses without "lists." with
> a reject containing the "new" name (introduced in 2004 or so?).
I think that would be an improvement for me, and is simple, but may
not be an improvement for others who also think the address without
lists. is more intuitive. Ideally work out something even better, but
beyond silently rewriting headers I'm not sure what. Maybe also
sending a note back to posters using the wrong address.
//Peter
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
