At 2:52 PM -0700 2005-05-14, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
> Google Groups honors "X-No-Archive: Yes"
Yes, but there are plenty of other gatewaying systems out there
which may not. My point is that once the message leaves your
control, there's not much you can do about what people do with i
Dallas> As a webhosting company we would without a doubt find a lot of
Dallas> value in any per-list control. We already get quite a lot of
Dallas> requests for this or that customization that's not possible on
Dallas> a per list basis now. This particular feature would be great
Dallas> as many
Barry> In principle, I like more general solutions and hooks for
Barry> extensibility than hard-coding in external dependencies like
Barry> this.
Like this? Since the Mailman UI is a bunch of HTML forms, put the GUI
control for third party archiving on the internet.
Configuration
> "JC" == JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JC> Add "X-NO-Archive: Yes" header yes [] no [x]
JC> Do we need to explain what this header does (and doesn't) do,
JC> or could we assume that if the list owner doesn't know that
JC> they can google to find out?
It nee
> "BAW" == Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BAW> The nice thing about a site-wide only selection is that you
BAW> don't have to expose any of this to the web u/i.
Uh, is that so "nice"? While I'm sure nobody has up to the minute
stats lying around, my sense is that a lot of t
> "BAW" == Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BAW> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 19:48, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>> Does archiving need to be integrated into mailman in the first
>> place? As opposed to, say, a place to specifiy the URL of the
>> archives for display?
BAW> T
On 5/12/05 5:57 PM, "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would see it that way, in the "Archiving" section of admin :
>>
>> Archiving on a foreign system :
>> ---
>>
>> prevent archiving on foreign systems yes [] no [x]
>>
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 23:56, JC Dill wrote:
> Do we need to explain what this header does (and doesn't) do, or could
> we assume that if the list owner doesn't know that they can google to
> find out?
You could add more information in the option's details.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 04:45, Fil wrote:
>
>
>>I would see it that way, in the "Archiving" section of admin :
>>
>> Archiving on a foreign system :
>> ---
>>
>>prevent archiving on foreign systems yes [] no [x]
>>
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 20:43, Jeff Marshall wrote:
> I'll get back with MARC and possibly GMane so I can try to make things
> as general as is reasonable. I'll try to run a proposed approach in
> front of the list before coding it (unless it's easy enough to
> demonstrate the proposal via code).
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 19:48, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> Does archiving need to be integrated into
> mailman in the first place? As opposed to, say, a place to specifiy
> the URL of the archives for display?
The key is that you have to know what value to insert into List-Archive.
But it dovetai
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 04:45, Fil wrote:
> I would see it that way, in the "Archiving" section of admin :
>
> Archiving on a foreign system :
> ---
>
> prevent archiving on foreign systems yes [] no [x]
> (adds a X-NO-Archive: head
On May 12, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Jeff Marshall wrote:
> Barry wrote:
>
>> I think I've stated my general philosophy in a previous message.
>> If WizzyMTA came with a new plug-in, documentation, and some promise
>> of support help (if only to answer questions on mailman-users), we'd
>> probably add th
Barry wrote:
> I think I've stated my general philosophy in a previous message.
> If WizzyMTA came with a new plug-in, documentation, and some promise
> of support help (if only to answer questions on mailman-users), we'd
> probably add the module in the next release. If we had a similar plug-in
what I did with my system was make the archiver completely separate
from Mailman -- to mailman , it's just another email address that the
admin subscribes, or not. Does archiving need to be integrated into
mailman in the first place? As opposed to, say, a place to specifiy
the URL of the ar
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 04:37, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Hrm. Maybe a way to turn on X-No-Archive should be part of this
> patch? (Or does Mailman offer that already? I don't see it.)
Not on the Mailman side.
> Good trick, that. Mailman is free software; it will be months before
> the revis
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 13:51, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> > ... if Mailman is going to endorse services that way. I don't really
> > think it's a good idea in principle, though. What happens if The Mail
> > Archive goes away or goes proprietary?
>
> then we disable the patch. No biggie. As long as
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 11:05, JC Dill wrote:
> I personally don't see it as being a significant endorsement. AIUI,
> it's a patch that allows 2 software programs to work well together.
> Mailman already provides patches or directions to make mailman work well
> with qmail and postfix, but I do
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 06:47, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> I wonder if adding a layer of indirection here would help with these
> considerations.
>
> That is -- Mailman could have a box saying "archive using external
> archivers" (without saying which external archivers) that list admins
> cou
I've looked at the patch, so let me give my general impressions, and
then try to answer some specific questions brought up in this thread.
First, obviously this can't make it into 2.1.6, since that's imminent.
The patch itself looks fine (i.e. no dotted T's or crossed I's :). But
I would probabl
Hi folks,
Jeff Marshall wrote:
> I have submitted a patch to SourceForge for consideration.
>
> Feature:
> - New third party archiving option that uses The Mail Archive.
I've reading your discussions and kept silent but recently urged to say
something here. You may think this timing is the la
I wrote:
> I will check with Hank at MARC.
One more followup. I emailed with Hank at MARC (marc.theaimsgroup.com). Hank
really likes the idea and tried enhancing the patch to cover MARC as well. He
ran into a few issues that caused him to abort the attempt ["...setting of the
List-Archive: U
Brad Knowles wrote:
>At 7:17 PM +0900 2005-05-06, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
>
>
>> Maybe you could make it part of the user's configuration. Then the
>> list master could default it to X-No-Archive: yes; individual users
>> could turn it to no if they want to, including on a message by messa
At 7:17 PM +0900 2005-05-06, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Maybe you could make it part of the user's configuration. Then the
> list master could default it to X-No-Archive: yes; individual users
> could turn it to no if they want to, including on a message by message
> basis. A stretch, I kn
> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brad> At 5:37 PM +0900 2005-05-03, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> It's not a good idea to put the burden of proof on them, when
>> either the list-owner can be more selective about membership,
>> or they can use X-No-Archive.
> "Bob" == Bob Puff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> Personally, I'd much rather see the HT/Dig patch implemented
Bob> before this one. That is IMHO more useful to the average
Bob> mailman admin than this.
Jeff's patch is so simple you could prove its correctness
mathematically.
-developers@python.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05 May 2005 19:14:40 -0700
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Patch for Mail Archive mirroring
> I figured I would attempt a brief summary of major points brought up
> by the discussion.
>
> Concerns
> - proper documentation describin
mailman-developers@python.org, Chuq Von Rospach , Chuq Von Rospach
Subj: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Patch for Mail Archive mirroring
At 5:37 PM +0900 2005-05-03, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Sure, they _are_ different, in a relevant way---they exist to broaden
> distribution, including ar
> The sequence of "prevent" "no" "if no" can be confusing.
You are not wrong! Indeed! I can't disagree :)
-- Fil
___
Mailman-Developers mailing list
Mailman-Developers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Mailman FAQ: h
Fil wrote:
>I would see it that way, in the "Archiving" section of admin :
>
> Archiving on a foreign system :
> ---
>
>prevent archiving on foreign systems yes [] no [x]
>(adds a X-NO-Archive: header)
>
>if no,
>send
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This meta-archival site would then have a list of external archivers
> that be notified about the mailing list.
(Like Jeff said, Gmane would probably not be one of these archivers,
because we need more information than is usually available fro
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... if Mailman is going to endorse services that way. I don't really
> think it's a good idea in principle, though. What happens if The Mail
> Archive goes away or goes proprietary? What are people going to think
> if The Mail Archive's mainta
At 5:37 PM +0900 2005-05-03, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Sure, they _are_ different, in a relevant way---they exist to broaden
> distribution, including archiving. But I think that in the great
> majority of cases where random users can just sign up, that is a
> service to be encouraged. It
I would see it that way, in the "Archiving" section of admin :
Archiving on a foreign system :
---
prevent archiving on foreign systems yes [] no [x]
(adds a X-NO-Archive: header)
if no,
send all mails to archive
> "Chuq" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> the 3rd party archiver.] I don't see why Gmane or the Mail
>> Archive should have to obey special rules here.
Chuq> because it's the list owners list, and they have the final
Chuq> say on how its run. Not the users.
Hi, I'm the other Jeff from The Mail Archive.
>Any subscriber might be keeping and publishing an archive of the list
>posts. If the listmaster doesn't like that, he should be vetting each
>subscription, and making sure that each subscriber understands the
>rules.
The list administrator may also
Tobias Eigen wrote:
- New third party archiving option that uses The Mail Archive. The
implementation subscribes or unsubscribes the
archive@mail-archive.com address from the subscriber list.
I find this whole discussion fascinating. I've been thinking about
these types of possibilities for a
At 2:33 PM -0400 2005-04-30, Tobias Eigen wrote:
The described patch to Mailman is very interesting, though, and I'm glad
it's been done. I haven't tried the patch, but from what I'm hearing the
issue of it appearing to endorse one or other archives can be dealt with
by making the feature custo
- New third party archiving option that uses The Mail Archive. The
implementation subscribes or unsubscribes the
archive@mail-archive.com address from the subscriber list.
I find this whole discussion fascinating. I've been thinking about
these types of possibilities for a while, and have been
Brad> Lars was nice enough to comply with our request to
Brad> remove our lists from gmane, but these kinds of operations
Brad> should not be done without a positive and explicit approval
Brad> from the listmaster.
Any subscriber might be keeping and publishing an archive of the
Thomas Hochstein wrote:
> Am I missing something, or wouldn't it be enough for a listowner who
> wishes to use that service to subscribe archive@mail-archive.com to
> the list to achieve that goal?
Yes, although the patch contains two options. The first is the option to
archive externally at ma
Jeff Marshall schrieb:
> - New third party archiving option that uses The Mail Archive. The
> implementation subscribes or unsubscribes the
> archive@mail-archive.com address from the subscriber list.
Am I missing something, or wouldn't it be enough for a listowner who
wishes to use that serv
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
"JC" == JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JC> I personally don't see it as being a significant endorsement.
JC> AIUI, it's a patch that allows 2 software programs to work
JC> well together.
My understanding is that the programs already work well to
> "JC" == JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JC> I personally don't see it as being a significant endorsement.
JC> AIUI, it's a patch that allows 2 software programs to work
JC> well together.
My understanding is that the programs already work well together; you
just type "[EMAIL
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The second is that this patch evidently constitutes a significant
endorsement of The Mail Archive. As I understand Jeff's post, he went
to the trouble of asking Lars if he would like a similar setup added
for Gmane, patch to be coded by Jeff || Jeff. I have to admit tha
At 5:01 PM +0900 2005-04-30, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Any subscriber might be keeping and publishing an archive of the list
posts.
True enough.
If the listmaster doesn't like that, he should be vetting each
subscription, and making sure that each subscriber understands the
rules.
> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brad> Lars was nice enough to comply with our request to
Brad> remove our lists from gmane, but these kinds of operations
Brad> should not be done without a positive and explicit approval
Brad> from the listmaster.
Any
At 3:09 PM -0700 2005-04-29, Jeff Marshall wrote:
Feedback?
Speaking as the listmaster for ntp.isc.org (and ntp.org, back
before all those lists got moved), I can say that I would not be
opposed to this patch, if you would be willing to guarantee that you
would not archive or mirror any mailin
I have submitted a patch to SourceForge for consideration.
Feature:
- New third party archiving option that uses The Mail Archive. The
implementation subscribes or unsubscribes the archive@mail-archive.com address
from the subscriber list.
The benefit to the list admin is to have a one-click s
49 matches
Mail list logo
