Re: [OT] Reply-To munging (was: List header cancer)

2007-10-27 Thread Bill McGonigle
On Oct 24, 2007, at 09:15, Ben Scott wrote: On 10/23/07, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point is if sizeof(People) 0, it's a problem. Look, this debate has been had a brazilian times You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means:

Re: [OT] Reply-To munging (was: List header cancer)

2007-10-27 Thread Ben Scott
On 10/27/07, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... there doesn't seem to be an easy non-one-size-fits-all solution for mailing lists, as implemented in mailman, anyway. Hmmm. Reply-To munging as a per-user option in the MLM (mailing list manager). 'scuse me, I've got to look at the

Re: [OT] Reply-To munging (was: List header cancer)

2007-10-27 Thread Ted Roche
Ben Scott wrote: On 10/27/07, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... there doesn't seem to be an easy non-one-size-fits-all solution for mailing lists, as implemented in mailman, anyway. Hmmm. Reply-To munging as a per-user option in the MLM (mailing list manager). 'scuse me,

Patching GNU Mailman to make reply-to munging a per-user option

2007-10-27 Thread Ben Scott
On 10/27/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... there doesn't seem to be an easy non-one-size-fits-all solution for mailing lists, as implemented in mailman, anyway. Hmmm. Reply-To munging as a per-user option in the MLM (mailing list manager). 'scuse me, I've got to look at the

Re: Patching GNU Mailman to make reply-to munging a per-user option

2007-10-27 Thread Lloyd Kvam
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 09:16 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2002-March/011068.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2002-March/011096.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2002-March/011104.html If no

Re: Patching GNU Mailman to make reply-to munging a per-user option

2007-10-27 Thread Ben Scott
On 10/27/07, Lloyd Kvam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry rejected that patch because he felt it was too complex which is not a terribly good sign. According to the commentary I saw, it was rejected mostly because they thought they were approaching release at the time. IOW, feature freeze.