On Sun, 2004-07-04 at 22:43 +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
I'm not entirely sure that I disagree with you,
OK. So I am not totally off my nut then. :-)
but this is functionality not currently found in Mailman, and this is an open source project.
Indeed. Very fair points.
If you want to contribute code to make this change happen, and post that as a patch in the SourceForge patch system for Mailman, I'm sure that it would be gladly accepted. No guarantees that this functionality would ever be incorporated, but this would be the most likely way to ensure that this would happen.
Right. I guess I just wanted to make sure my analysis was correct first. Seems it is then.
Otherwise, you're at the mercy of the developers on the project. This project is not a full-time job for anyone (so far as I know), and people have to squeeze in what work that they can, when they can.
I hear ya. I'm in that same boat. :-)
Right now, the primary focus in Mailman is on the upcoming version 3 stuff, and any work on patching/fixing the current version is going to have to be something pretty major.
So will version 3 be the next release? i.e. nothing until then? Does v.3 address this issue at all or is it pretty much the same in 3?
The next question is, what should MM do with delivery warnings? Is there any merit to doing anything but ignore them silently? That begs the question of why even issue them from the MTA of course, but perhaps not all MTAs are flexible enough to disable those warnings for or below a certain Precedence level. Perhaps for regular mail those warnings are still wanted. Postfix falls into this category as far as I can see, but then I am only a casual user of Postfix -- maybe it is configurable.
b.