> Dan MacNeil wrote:
>> [snip]
>> current unsubscribe process take 5 steps:
>>
>> 1) Click
>> 2) enter email
>> 3) click submit
>> 4) read email
>> 5) reply to email
[snip]
>
> I hear what you're saying, and I'm not trying to avoid your request,
> but I want to point out
Hi. There's a fairly simple problem here that needs to be
addressed. And it's mostly a documentation/install problem. I'm
hoping we can get this resolved before the next release.
PROBLEM: Mailman comes out of the box ready to backscatter spam people.
Yes, it's easy enough to fix. But beca
Jo Rhett writes:
> Hi. There's a fairly simple problem here that needs to be
> addressed. And it's mostly a documentation/install problem. I'm
> hoping we can get this resolved before the next release.
Which "next release"? 2.1.10, which is deep into beta at this point?
I would strongl
> Jo Rhett writes:
>> Hi. There's a fairly simple problem here that needs to be
>> addressed. And it's mostly a documentation/install problem. I'm
>> hoping we can get this resolved before the next release.
On Mar 4, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> Which "next release"? 2.1.10
Jo Rhett wrote:
>
>1. Don't create backscatter aliases for subscribe/unsubscribe/etc by
>default. Nearly everyone uses web based signup.
Do you have data to back up this assertion?
Even if we wanted to do this, it is non-trivial. All confirmation
messages and their templates and translations
Hiya!
After an embarrassingly long absence, I am going to try again to make
some progress on the web ui front.
Barry said in an earlier message that there's no web UI for mm3: my
first impulse is to start on something there.
I was humbled enough by my first experience trying to make progress
On Mar 4, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> 1. Don't create backscatter aliases for subscribe/unsubscribe/etc by
>> default. Nearly everyone uses web based signup.
>
> Do you have data to back up this assertion?
Sure. I used to work for an ISP with 1400 lists and ~4 million
subscribers a
Jo Rhett writes:
> This is not substantive, it's trivial.
*sigh* From the point of view of the release manager, there are no
trivial code changes to a release candidate. You are handicapping
your advocacy by failing to acknowledge the potential for trouble.
Adding a README.backscatter would b
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 11:31:03PM -0500, Dan MacNeil wrote:
> Since 2005, things have gotten a bit more ruthless on the
> anti-spam front, Particularly at the large providers so
lists.ibiblio.org currently hosts 566 lists. We are constantly having
to deal with mail providers who blacklist us
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:28:22PM -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
> The Defaults.py setting for DEFAULT_GENERIC_NONMEMBER_ACTION has been
> Hold from the beginning.
We've recently set this to 3 (Discard) for new lists. Please explain
the argument for keeping the default as Hold for the long term. I
Cristóbal Palmer writes:
> Even without the original message text a response is a problem.
I agree -- the addresses are too easy to compute and do end up in
lists that are sold -- and would support consideration of changing the
defaults as proposed.
But not for 2.1.10. Changing 2.1.10 is dumb
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 02:27:06PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> So the right thing to do is to get 2.1.10 out the door as is, and get
> started on 2.2.
Agreed. I like the README.backscatter proposal, too. Such a document
would (ideally) help us and other admins who want to take action *now*
12 matches
Mail list logo
