Keith Bierman writes:
> Probably betrays my ignorance of the OP's needs, but I'd have thought:
>
> 1) tracking who joins is more interesting than those leaving
That depends. In many organizational settings monitoring certain
channels is part of the job of certain people. And of course
On 12/06/2015 06:06 PM, Steven Jones wrote:
> "Should administrator get notices of subscribes and unsubscribes? "
>
>
> Would it be possible to split these as our list admins would like to see
> unsubscribes but not subscribes.
There are no plans to implement such a split in official MM 2.1
Probably betrays my ignorance of the OP's needs, but I'd have thought:
1) tracking who joins is more interesting than those leaving
2) client side filtering (including automated discarding) allows the
administrators to save their sanity ...
So I find the described request slightly surprising.
ds
Steven
From: Mailman-Users <mailman-users-bounces+steven.jones=vuw.ac...@python.org>
on behalf of Keith Bierman <khb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 December 2015 10:47 a.m.
To: Mark Sapiro
Cc: mailman-users@python.org
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] feature reques
On 12/07/2015 01:54 PM, Steven Jones wrote:
>
> It is an emergency mailing list that only gets used in a major emergency,
> 19000 subscribers. We dont really care who subscribes but we dont want
> "important" ppl un-subscribing and then complaining they didnt get teh
> emergency email down
Gadi Evron writes:
crappy providers aside, do you think this might be a useful
feature?
I think that, as Mark alludes to, this feature would be harder to
implement usefully than you'd think. It sounds easy, but remember, in
a very large share cases where it would be useful *your mail system
1. Mailman aliases not working (like in my case)
2. Unable to access my email, but have access to web (which is common
for those of us behind corporate firewalls)
3. My email is broken, but my internet it still working
However, even with these reasons, I wouldn't consider it a big deal,
Bill Catambay writes:
1. Mailman aliases not working (like in my case)
2. Unable to access my email, but have access to web (which is common
for those of us behind corporate firewalls)
3. My email is broken, but my internet it still working
However, even with these reasons, I
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Gadi Evron writes:
crappy providers aside, do you think this might be a useful
feature?
I think that, as Mark alludes to, this feature would be harder to
implement usefully than you'd think. It sounds easy, but remember, in
a very large share cases where it
Bill Catambay wrote:
1. Mailman aliases not working (like in my case)
2. Unable to access my email, but have access to web (which is common
for those of us behind corporate firewalls)
3. My email is broken, but my internet it still working
However, even with these reasons, I wouldn't consider
On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Brad Knowles wrote:
At the very least, you should find a different provider where they actually
give you the support you require.
Brad, crappy providers aside, do you think this might be a useful feature?
I can see that it might be a useful
Gadi Evron wrote:
Actually, I spoke of a possible _announcement_ feature, not an emergency
feature.
I see two requests in this thread. The original appeared to be a
request for a way to send a regular post to a list via the admin web
interface, which would be useful in cases where for whatever
At 7:32 PM +0900 on 11/23/09, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Bill Catambay writes:
1. Mailman aliases not working (like in my case)
2. Unable to access my email, but have access to web (which is common
for those of us behind corporate firewalls)
3. My email is broken, but my internet it
On Nov 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
The second request, which might also satisfy the first if it were
implemented as a web service, seems to be for a way to send a message
right now to all members of a list (or all lists?) regardless of
digest and nomail settings.
Actually, MM2
At 7:56 AM -0800 on 11/23/09, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I see two requests in this thread. The original appeared to be a
request for a way to send a regular post to a list via the admin web
interface, which would be useful in cases where for whatever reason,
the list was working but email delivery
At 11:05 AM -0500 on 11/23/09, Barry Warsaw wrote:
The second request, which might also satisfy the first if it were
implemented as a web service, seems to be for a way to send a message
right now to all members of a list (or all lists?) regardless of
digest and nomail settings.
Actually,
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
The second request, which might also satisfy the first if it were
implemented as a web service, seems to be for a way to send a message
right now to all members of a list (or all lists?) regardless of
digest and nomail
On Nov 23, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I knew I'd seen that somewhere. Problem was I looked for it as an RFE
and not as an existing feature :)
:)
-Barry
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 09:42 -0600, Brad Knowles wrote:
However, the laundry list of useful features that could be added to
Mailman is several miles long and almost as wide, and I'm not
qualified to judge where on that laundry list this particular feature
would/should fall -- I'll leave that to
At 1:32 PM +0200 on 11/23/09, Gadi Evron wrote:
Actually, I spoke of a possible _announcement_ feature, not an
emergency feature.
Announcement feature would be better, since it's not always going
to be an emergency (and would still work in my situation).
--
,,,
Bill Catambay wrote:
If by send a message, you mean email a message to the normal
foo-list email address, then I'm back to square one (i.e., it will
never reach anyone on the list because of the aliases being whacked).
But, I hope you understand that your specific need/situation - email
At 8:52 AM -0800 on 11/23/09, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Bill Catambay wrote:
If by send a message, you mean email a message to the normal
foo-list email address, then I'm back to square one (i.e., it will
never reach anyone on the list because of the aliases being whacked).
But, I hope you
Terri Oda wrote:
Maybe a nice in-between solution would be making sure the
FAQ/Documentation had an entry saying if you need to get an emergency
message out and Mailman is not working, here's how to get the whole
subscriber list and send a Bcc'ed mail Anyone want to volunteer to
stick that
On Nov 23, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
An ever-increasing number of software packages support the
installation
of 3rd party extensions, said extensions supporting the activities of
installation, deactivation and removal, leaving the core system
unaltered. This provides end
On Nov 23, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Bill Catambay wrote:
If by send a message, you mean email a message to the normal foo-
list email address, then I'm back to square one (i.e., it will never
reach anyone on the list because of the aliases being whacked).
Honestly, I don't see Mailman doing
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:55:31AM -0800, Bill Catambay wrote:
Given my current situation (as rare as this situation may be), I have
come to realize that an emergency broadcast feature would be an
indispensable tool to have right now. Since my host made the alias
change on my mailing list,
Bill Catambay wrote:
Given my current situation (as rare as this situation may be), I have
come to realize that an emergency broadcast feature would be an
indispensable tool to have right now. Since my host made the alias
change on my mailing list, but did not create the MX record for the
On Nov 22, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
This could be done with bin/inject on the Mailman server to inject a
message directly into Mailman's in/ queue bypassing the MTA, but you
don't have the required access. Since you don't have the required
access, I do see the need in your case,
The weekend crew at my ISP are general tech support (i.e., they
really only handle internet connection issues). My ISP does have an
Operations group which usually are pretty knowledgeable, but I they
simply aren't working on the weekend.
For what it's worth, they are the best ISP I have had
On 11/22/09 2:53 PM, Bill Catambay at and...@excaliburworld.com wrote:
When I used Autoshare listserver software, it ran on my home server
(a Mac), and I never had to rely on anyone for support (handled
everything myself). Unfortunately, that software has not been
updated in over 10 years
On 22-Nov-2009, at 13:53, Bill Catambay wrote:
When I used Autoshare listserver software, it ran on my home server (a Mac),
and I never had to rely on anyone for support (handled everything myself).
Unfortunately, that software has not been updated in over 10 years and is no
longer
On Nov 22, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
This could be done with bin/inject on the Mailman server to inject a
message directly into Mailman's in/ queue bypassing the MTA, but you
don't have the required access. Since you don't have the required
access, I do see the need in your
Brad Knowles wrote:
At the very least, you should find a different provider where they actually
give you the support you require.
Brad, crappy providers aside, do you think this might be a useful feature?
I remember a few occasion when I needed to grab the subscribers list and
email everyone
On 22-Nov-2009, at 17:14, Gadi Evron wrote:
Brad, crappy providers aside, do you think this might be a useful feature?
It could be useful in a very narrow set of circumstances. the question is, is
it worth putting resources into such a feature for those very few times this
would be useful?
My
LuKreme wrote:
On 22-Nov-2009, at 17:14, Gadi Evron wrote:
Brad, crappy providers aside, do you think this might be a useful feature?
It could be useful in a very narrow set of circumstances. the question is, is
it worth putting resources into such a feature for those very few times this
Michael Welch writes:
Mark Sapiro wrote at 05:57 PM 3/16/2009:
I don't know if adding a 'moderate' flag to invitations is really
of general interest.
Hi Mark. I am not sure either, but I know that I have wished for it
more than once. I know that Mailman cannot be everything to
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 04:20:39PM -0700, Michael Welch wrote:
I would love to see some way of putting someone on moderation when I
add or invite them via Mass Subscriptions (which for me is normally
one at a time anyway).
have you used the default_member_moderation (privacy/sender) setting?
Hi Adam.
Ahh, a workaround. Change the default setting, add the member, then change it
back.
Unfortunately, one has to wait until after the new member has confirmed before
changing the default moderation settng back.
Need to tie a string around my finger.
Adam McGreggor wrote at 04:33 PM
Michael Welch wrote:
Ahh, a workaround. Change the default setting, add the member, then change it
back.
Unfortunately, one has to wait until after the new member has confirmed before
changing the default moderation settng back.
I don't get it. Why would you want to moderate new members you
Mark Sapiro wrote at 05:27 PM 3/16/2009:
Michael Welch wrote:
Ahh, a workaround. Change the default setting, add the member, then change it
back.
Unfortunately, one has to wait until after the new member has confirmed
before changing the default moderation settng back.
I don't get it.
Michael Welch wrote:
Mark Sapiro wrote at 05:27 PM 3/16/2009:
Michael Welch wrote:
Ahh, a workaround. Change the default setting, add the member, then change
it back.
Unfortunately, one has to wait until after the new member has confirmed
before changing the default moderation settng back.
Hi Everyone,
For what it is worth... I'd like to be able to have all the options that
are available in the user management screen available in the bulk
subscription screen.
I operate a list which is closed to anyone except by personal invite, so
pretty much use the bulk subscribe option for all
Mark Sapiro wrote at 05:57 PM 3/16/2009:
I don't know if adding a 'moderate' flag to invitations is really of general
interest.
Hi Mark. I am not sure either, but I know that I have wished for it more than
once. I know that Mailman cannot be everything to everyone.
I think that more
On 7/15/08, Savoy, Jim wrote:
We have class lists,
lab lists, club lists, team lists, student lists, employee lists,
security lists (some of which contain every soul on our campus - rarely
ever used (never used yet, in fact, knock wood) for
Brad Knowles wrote:
Mailing lists are useful for a wide variety of things, but
VT-type emergencies are not among them.
Well we definitely know that it isn't the *only* solution (there are
speakers and alarms and sirens and lights and cameras everywhere on
campus). But it is just one more
I guess we might be considered a fascist regime, but mass-subscribe
is an invauable tool here at our university. Hardly any of our lists are
opt-in (what a nightmare that would be for us - we need our lists up
and populated on exact dates and ready to roll). We have class lists,
lab lists,
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
P.S. I still don't understand why they insist on an invite model.
Because all it takes is one listowner that doesn't understand and does a
mass subscribe of a number of people, some of those people complain and then
the entire ISP gets blacklisted. And some blacklists
Zbigniew Szalbot writes:
1/ Mailman as a discussion list - like the one we're having here. I
don't imagine spammers would be setting up their lists as discussion
list, would they? I don't actually imagine big time spammers using
mailman. They're all about botnets.
Big time spammers
Hi there,
Stephen J. Turnbull:
This is a market to gain for Mailman but it currently lacks a few
features to do that. Well, my post is slowly getting off topic
But IMO it would be quite on-topic for mailman-developers. This kind
of post would be more effective in inciting dev activity if
Cyndi Norwitz writes:
There are two differences with email: 1) there are only spotty and poorly
enforced laws against junk email (in part because a lot of it is
international and/or hidden) and 2) sending snail mail, faxes, or phoning
all cost money--sending emails costs little to
Larry Stone writes:
Brad, I'm glad you added that. But it raises an interesting topic of
discussion which is why is e-mail held to a different standard than
other means of communication.
Because it's different. First, the costs are several orders of
magnitude cheaper. Second, identifying
Michael Welch writes:
I think that bulk adding is a dangerous thing to allow, from the
host's viewpoint at a minimum. Who's to say what unscrupulous
a-holes are ready to take advantage of that ability.
Very dumb ones. I really don't see a major social problem here; as a
host, make your
Brad Knowles writes:
I know there are people who use it responsibly, which is why I
don't advocate too strongly for its removal. But that doesn't mean
that it doesn't get abused, or that we shouldn't do things to try
to curb that abuse.
I have to disagree. Anything that can be done
Hi all,
I have to disagree. Anything that can be done with the Mailman mass
subscribe feature can be done just as effectively with a contact
list on Gmail, in theory.[1] It's other aspects of Gmail policy that
(so far at least) make that a small enough problem that I've never
considered
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 11, 2008, at 4:18 AM, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
2/ Mailman as a newsletter/announcement list.
I can't sponsor the developers (sad but true) but I'd love to see
Mailman giving me an option to create either discussion or
announcement list
On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:06 PM, Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
It's a bit more work to get rid of junk mail but, again, the law
says you
have to be removed from their list if you ask. And there are some
places
to sign up to opt out of receiving mass mailings.
The problem with this, is the fact
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
P.S. I still don't understand why they insist on an invite model.
Because all it takes is one listowner that doesn't understand and does a
mass subscribe of a number of people, some of those people complain and then
the entire ISP gets blacklisted. And some blacklists
Hi friends.
I think that bulk adding is a dangerous thing to allow, from the host's
viewpoint at a minimum. Who's to say what unscrupulous a-holes are ready to
take advantage of that ability.
That said, my own need calls for the ability to do just that. We are qualifying
individual supporters
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:20:01 -0500
From: Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
P.S. I still don't understand why they insist on an invite model.
Because all it takes is one listowner that doesn't understand and does a
mass subscribe of a number of people,
Michael Welch wrote:
That said, my own need calls for the ability to do just that.
And I've used it myself on numerous occasions. This is why I haven't made
too much noise about stripping this function, or even turning it off by
default. I trust myself to use it, and I'm willing to trust
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
I thought Mark's suggestion of limiting direct adds to a small number per
time unit, or my ISP's suggestion of being able to give particular lists or
listowners the ability to do direct adds (overruled by his superviser it
seems), to be quite reasonable.
Agreed.
Of
Right, Brad.
Did you note that on our subscribe page, the default radio box is subscribe
and not invite?
I do not know if that is a site admin setting, but it seems to me it should be
the opposite.
Brad Knowles wrote at 11:58 AM 7/10/2008:
Michael Welch wrote:
That said, my own need calls
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
I really really hate having my ability to effectively run lists (or
websites or chats) curtailed because of the huge numbers of greedy jerks
out there. I realize it can't be ignored but I am hoping there could be
some middle ground.
End original message.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Brad Knowles wrote:
Michael Welch wrote:
That said, my own need calls for the ability to do just that.
And I've used it myself on numerous occasions. This is why I haven't made
too much noise about stripping this function, or even turning it off by
default. I trust
Larry Stone wrote:
Brad, I'm glad you added that. But it raises an interesting topic of
discussion which is why is e-mail held to a different standard than
other means of communication.
This is a lot like another case where there is only harm perceived when
someone claims that they've been
The esteemed Brad Knowles has said:
Personally, I would be happy to see the mass subscribe feature go away
completely from the web interface of Mailman, or at least disabled by
default. But then I've been fighting spam since the time I was the Sr.
Internet Mail Administrator at AOL in
--On Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:42 PM -0600 Hank van Cleef
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The two mail subscription ports (-join, -subscribe) are disabled.
How can the Mass Subscriptions options for all new lists be changed to only
Invite? I'd like to eliminate the Subscribe option. I looked in
Hank van Cleef wrote:
I am going to go on record as very strongly OPPOSED to removal of the
mass subscribe feature. We used it as the only method a new user
can subscribe to the list.
I know there are people who use it responsibly, which is why I don't
advocate too strongly for its
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:12:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Larry Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When someone applies for games, I use mass subscribe to add them. I
think it's reasonable to conclude that by applying, they have an
expectation that I'll use the address they've provided to send them
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can the Mass Subscriptions options for all new lists be changed to only
Invite? I'd like to eliminate the Subscribe option. I looked in the
Defaults.py file but did not find this.
There are no settings for it nor for defaulting subscribe/invite to
invite (although
Sigh...this is my ISP's response to my request. At least they did take it
seriously and consider it (the option is Mark's suggestion of a severe
limit on numbers of subscribers listowners could add per
day/week/whatever).
We have decided that we are not going to implement this option on our
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Cyndi Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, I disagree. As do all the other mailing list providers that I'm
aware of.
Not me. If I were setting up a Mailman system that allowed un-trusted
users to admin lists, then I would remove the bulk-subscription
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:54:59 -0400
From: Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Cyndi Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, I disagree. As do all the other mailing list providers that I'm
aware of.
Not me. If I were setting up a Mailman
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Cyndi Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming you ran a system with users you didn't know well enough to judge,
what sorts of options would you consider implementing? If any...
Excellent question. I would have to think, given the prevalence and
persistence
Cyndi Norwitz writes:
I appreciate your input. I am curious what other server owners/
ISP's do. From the talk on this list, it would seem that any
restriction on what listowners can do is considered a violation.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a violation, but I would not
want
Hi all, I am finally doing a followup on this. Mark asked me to vet his
proposed solution to my ISP and see what they said. They actually took it
quite seriously and discussed it. I just got a phone call from the head
guy in that department who wanted to speak to me directly about it. (Mark,
Karen R McArthur wrote:
Is there a way to add the web membership management module to the
moderator without giving the moderator admin web access?
No.
To persue this as a feature request, see http://wiki.list.org/x/RoBE
(you could add to the other notes section).
--
Mark Sapiro [EMAIL
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
Please let me know if I should post this elsewhere too.
The Mass Subscribe feature has two settings: on and off.
No it doesn't.
My
ISP has chosen to turn off Mass Subscribe. Only the invite feature is
left.
This is not a setting. It is a code modification done
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:51:02 -0700
From: Mark Sapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can see that actual site settings something like
MAXIMUM_LIST_OWNER_SUBSCRIBES = 10
LIST_OWNER_SUBSCRIBE_WINDOW = days(7)
to allow at most 10 subscribes in any 7 day period, might be an
alternative
Cyndi Norwitz wrote:
Please let me know if I should post this elsewhere too.
This is kind of an edge case. You're getting close to territory that would
probably be better handled over on the mailman-developers list, although
you're not really discussing any particular specific code changes
(figures, apparently my mail program is one of those *broken* ones so
apologies, this originally sent off list)
Hello Cyndi,
I do see where you are coming from, but abuse issues can go the opposite
direction from your description, and usually does.
The host I work for does NOT turn off mass
Brad Knowles writes:
I don't see a problem with having this discussion continue on the
mailman-users list for now (at least you'll get the opportunity for some
feedback from other mailman list/site admins who are not on the
mailman-developers list),
I think the very political nature
Hi Krystal,
I'd be interested to know what you call double opt-in. Is it a web
subscription + email reply with the cookie, or double-that (and in
that case, what is the scenario).
FWIW I don't think the option Cindy proposes passes Occam's razor. For
the moment it looks like lots of complexity
Fil wrote:
I'd be interested to know what you call double opt-in. Is it a web
subscription + email reply with the cookie, or double-that (and in
that case, what is the scenario).
My understanding of this is that double opt-in and what I call
confirmed opt-in are the same thing and that they
Hello,
Let me first say I was in no way competing with Cyndi's suggestion, I
should probably have prefaced by saying I think the option provided is a
good one. And again, we have no modifications to Mailman that is not
built in to modify (we have turned off personalization for example, but
That is EXACTLY right.
Mark Sapiro wrote:
My understanding of this is that double opt-in and what I call
confirmed opt-in are the same thing and that they mean
1. User requests to be on the list via a web form, email, etc. This is
the first opt-in. Note that strictly speaking, this probably
On 9/1/06, David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It'd sure be nice if there were a CSS file associated with the web
archives that mailman generates. Perhaps, ideally, a different one
for the individual message files and for the various index files.
Perhaps there could be a default one
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
It'd sure be nice if there were a CSS file associated with the web
archives that mailman generates.
See http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/Summer+of+Code.
--
Mark Sapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use
On 9/1/06, Mark Sapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
It'd sure be nice if there were a CSS file associated with the web
archives that mailman generates.
See http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/Summer+of+Code.
That's interesting. Although if I understand correctly, he's
At 5:45 PM +0100 2005-03-15, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
is this the correct place to ask feature requests (i didn't dare to
go directly to mailman-dev)
If you have a feature request, that should be filed on the
Mailman RFE page at
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=103atid=350103.
i
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
thanks for hints
Brad already gave a detailed reply regarding posting of patches to
sourceforge.net.
I have a couple of remarks about the patch itself.
First, the diff is backwards. It shows deletions from the new version
to make the original instead of additions to
On 2003-12-08 at 22:14:26-0500 Jon Carnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modify the file ~mailman/Mailman/Utils.py
def list_exists(listname)
Thanks for the tip.
Making list_exists() lie in order to prevent the creation of
undesirable lists seems like a kluge, though. Wouldn't it be better
to have
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:25:13PM +0200, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Would it be to much to ask for a language specific request?
Both I and my users think a function to post different messages to
different
users depending of their language choice would be great!
F.x. I run a news/info
On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 02:25 pm, Anders Norrbring wrote:
Hiya!
Would it be to much to ask for a language specific request?
Both I and my users think a function to post different messages to
different
users depending of their language choice would be great!
F.x. I run a news/info
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 10:18, Phil Iovino wrote:
Where/to whom can I submit a feature request?
The preferred site is http://sourceforge.net/projects/mailman/
You can also make requests on either this list or the Dev list.
--
Mailman-Users
Check out the list-member dump that is a part of the list's listinfo
page. This is available if turned on by the list admin.
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 16:53, Phil Iovino wrote:
Details below. Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Phil Iovino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday,
]
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Feature Request - Was RE:
Subscriber List?
Check out the list-member dump that is a part of the list's listinfo
page. This is available if turned on by the list admin.
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 16:53, Phil Iovino wrote:
Details below. Thanks!
-Original
: Jon Carnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:24 PM
To: Phil Iovino
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Feature Request - Was RE:
Subscriber List?
Check out the list-member dump that is a part of the list's listinfo
page. This is available
At 21:57 04.02.02 -0800, jgo wrote:
Sun, 2002-02-03 09:37:51 +0100 Matthias Jaenichen wrote:
even if you use TEXT, but have nonstandard chars in the text/subject like
äöü the archives become unreadable.
I think the problem here is that the format it is stored in the archives is
the
Sun, 2002-02-03 09:37:51 +0100 Matthias Jaenichen wrote:
even if you use TEXT, but have nonstandard chars in the text/subject like
äöü the archives become unreadable.
I think the problem here is that the format it is stored in the archives is
the only transportable one. If we strip html,
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo