Kern Sibbald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Well, everyone is entitled to his opinion.
And thanks to the internet, we can all express it ;)
> In my case, it is not that I cannot be bothered to subscribe as you seem
> suggest. This should be obvious from the amount of time and effort I put into
Hello,
On Wednesday 18 May 2005 09:37, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> Kern Sibbald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > What I don't like about this is that some users (such as myself) don't
> > want to subscribe to lists even to get help
>
> If you got software for free, and you can't even be bothered to do
Kern Sibbald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> What I don't like about this is that some users (such as myself) don't want
> to
> subscribe to lists even to get help
If you got software for free, and you can't even be bothered to do something as
simple as subscribe to a free mailing list to receive f
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 16:36, Jo wrote:
> Henry Yen wrote:
> >The two opposing positions are:
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> > http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
> >
> >I have no particular opinion one way or another, but popular sentiment
> >(including
Hello,
I get a good number of requests to change the list behavior to "mung" the
Reply-To. It might perhaps help me avoid getting two copies of most emails I
send that get answered, and help those that forget to use the "Respond to
all", but as the first of the articles points out, it can cre
Henry Yen wrote:
The two opposing positions are:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
I have no particular opinion one way or another, but popular sentiment
(including mailman's default settings) very much favor the first of the tw
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Henry Yen wrote:
Moreover, other closed lists that I'm on occasionally get spam from
listmembers whose machines are compromised (100.00% windows 'bots, so far).
Or mail forged to be from list members - the actual checking is fairly
dain bramaged in almost all lists and relies
On 17 May 2005 at 13:30, Jo wrote:
> While we're at it. It would be nice to have the reply-to field set to
> the list where the mail came from and not to the person who sent the
> mail. Even though I switched to a mail client that has a send to all
> button, I constantly forget that I have to p
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:30:56AM +0200, Jo wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
> >So, what I am suggesting as a *possibility* is:
> >- Modify the bacula-users (and probably bacula-devel) list to be subscriber
> >only.
> >
> >What I don't like about this is that some users (such as myself) don't want
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:54:39PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 May 2005 12:18, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > Can't you just set 'generic_nonmember_action' to 'reject'? That's what I
> > do with my mailman lists. It just rejects emails from non-subscribers
> > without administrative inter
Kern,
I vote for the subscriber only list.
Generally speaking I do not subscribe to lists due to all the volume,
but this seems like a pretty good lists, I have gotten many more
questions resolved just by being subscribed, than posting to the forums
and checking every few days or so.
In this case
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 12:18, Christoph Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:50:20AM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > So, what I am suggesting as a *possibility* is:
> > - Modify the bacula-users (and probably bacula-devel) list to be
> > subscriber only.
> > - Nightly purge all email held for ad
Kern Sibbald wrote:
Hello,
Notwithstanding my previous remarks about spam, I have noticed that there is
more and more on this list. After thinking about it for a while, I can
implement a script that automatically rejects all email by nonsubscribed
users (it also rejects all other email held for
tir, 17,.05.2005 kl. 11.50 +0200, skrev Kern Sibbald:
> Hello,
>
> Notwithstanding my previous remarks about spam, I have noticed that there is
> more and more on this list. After thinking about it for a while, I can
> implement a script that automatically rejects all email by nonsubscribed
>
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:50:20AM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> So, what I am suggesting as a *possibility* is:
> - Modify the bacula-users (and probably bacula-devel) list to be subscriber
> only.
> - Nightly purge all email held for administrative approval -- i.e. all emails
> from nonsubscribe
Hello,
Notwithstanding my previous remarks about spam, I have noticed that there is
more and more on this list. After thinking about it for a while, I can
implement a script that automatically rejects all email by nonsubscribed
users (it also rejects all other email held for administrative app
16 matches
Mail list logo
