--On Sunday, October 17, 2004 9:53 am +0900 Tokio Kikuchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Fil,
Thank you for testing.
Fil wrote:
I've just tried the scrubber, and Apple's Mail does a bad job parsing the
message's scrubbed URL (that is followed with the signature), so the hits
went to
Oct 16 15:02:
At 9:08 PM -0400 2004-10-17, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Oh, BTW, could you (or someone) update those FAQ entries to explain my
intent about Python backward compatibility? Thanks,
If this hasn't already been done, I will do so.
--
Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Those who would give up essential
At 9:07 PM -0400 2004-10-17, Barry Warsaw wrote:
As to 5.8 and 4.42, I do consider the fact that Mailman 2.1.5 breaks
under older Python's a bug that should be fixed in 2.1.6 (and was fixed
in CVS very early on). Mailman 2.1.x should still run under Python
2.1. I do however /recommend/ using
At 9:08 PM -0400 2004-10-17, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Oh, BTW, could you (or someone) update those FAQ entries to explain my
intent about Python backward compatibility? Thanks,
Okay, 5.8 and 5.12 have been updated with notes at the end, based
on comments made in this thread. Please let me know if
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> As for 5.12, I think it's an oversight on my part that the bounce probe
> feature requires VERP support in the MTA. I would like to see the probe
> become optional in 2.1.6 so that if you do not have VERP, Mailman will
> process bounces in the 2.1.4 way (i.e. not send a prob
Does the scrubber wrap the URLs in angle brackets, per the appendix to
rfc 1738?
No. Scrubber.py is originally written for the pipermail archiver. So, it
was enough not wrapping. But, I think URL parsing of MUA is an optional
feature and there is no standard. My Netscape mailer always add trailin
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:12:54 -0400, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-10-16 at 23:48, Gustavo Franco wrote:
>
> > Anyone cares about 1029275 (Maximum number of members per list) ? This
> > patch was submitted at sf and here a month ago and still nothing. I
> > just want to rea
Hi Terri,
If your list machine isn't the same box as the webserver machine, then the web-based create isn't
going to work. :-) I still think it makes sense.
Bob
Terri Oda wrote:
On Oct 17, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Bob Puff wrote:
Hmm I guess I still don't get why "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is confusing, beca
On Sat, 2004-10-16 at 04:30, Fil wrote:
> I would like to know if this check can be expanded to list all GID that
> mailman will accept? Or if I should just be more carful in setting up my
> system? :)
We patch mailman to accept multiple GID's. The patch is attached. It
includes changes to configu
On Oct 18, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your list machine isn't the same box as the webserver machine, then
the web-based create isn't going to work. :-) I still think it makes
sense.
Good point -- I'd forgotten we were still talking about web based
creation. I was makin
Right. But when would you use a www.domain? I never use www. Do people name their box www? I
usually name the host something else. I think most people are smart enough to figure out that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not [EMAIL PROTECTED] You face the exact same problem of people doing the
same thi
Overview:
-
Earlier I wrote about our (Red Hat's) desire to make mailman be FHS
compliant, in part to allow mailman to fall under the protection of
SELinux security policy which is file and directory based and as a
consequence much easier to author when packages install into canonical
loca
|> If your list machine isn't the same box as the webserver machine, then
|> the web-based create isn't going to work. :-)
Unless the webserver is mounting the list machine's Mailman installation
via NFS.
I think that if you want a fair compromise, then require a '--posting-address='
argument t
On 10/16/2004 14:13, "David Relson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:52:15 -0700
> John W. Baxter wrote:
>
> ...[snip]...
>
>> You might want to refer folks who want to run test "virus" messages
>> through their Mailman system ("system" = the MTA and its filtering and
>> Mailm
Bob Puff wrote:
>Right. But when would you use a www.domain? I never use www. Do people name their
>box www? I
>usually name the host something else. I think most people are smart enough to figure
>out that
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not [EMAIL PROTECTED] You face the exact same problem of pe
John makes some really valid points here. While it is a bit more of a change, FHS compatibility
does make sense. Is this something that we can consider for future 2.1.x releases?
Bob
John Dennis wrote:
Overview:
-
Earlier I wrote about our (Red Hat's) desire to make mailman be FHS
compl
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> John makes some really valid points here. While it is a bit more of a
> change, FHS compatibility does make sense. Is this something that we
> can consider for future 2.1.x releases?
Upgradability without problems is very important for patch-le
Dear all,
Please tell me how i can include mailing list users real name with their emails. (i.e.
"someone" [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and i also want to include their real names in the
footers of respective mails.
I know most of u know how to do it. So pls help me. I am using Mailman 2.1.5
Thanx,
Sum
18 matches
Mail list logo
