Re: [Mailman-Developers] Protecting email addresses from spam harvesters
Not that it is a big deal to me, but out of curiosity: what part of mailman cares that it's a list and not a mail alias?
The *user*, when the list machinery breaks completely, and there's no obvious target address to complain to.
While this might be a good point, it's wrong and unhelpful to Marc's question.
"wrong" was misstated; what I meant to say was "the user is not part of Mailman".
At 10:55 -0800 2/27/2002, Dan Mick wrote:
"wrong" was misstated; what I meant to say was "the user is not part of Mailman".
But the user is part of the mailing list system. Usually the most troublesome part.
--John
-- John Baxter jwblist@olympus.net Port Ludlow, WA, USA
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:55:17AM -0800, Dan Mick wrote:
Not that it is a big deal to me, but out of curiosity: what part of mailman cares that it's a list and not a mail alias?
The *user*, when the list machinery breaks completely, and there's no obvious target address to complain to.
While this might be a good point, it's wrong and unhelpful to Marc's question.
"wrong" was misstated; what I meant to say was "the user is not part of Mailman".
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, here. The user is the most important part of any system (or we wouldn't go so far out of our way to coddle them), and they are the only part affected by this.
Does the fact that you don't consider the user "part of mailman" mean that you don't think it's important that they have a way to contact the server admin when everything breaks?
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
"If you don't have a dream; how're you gonna have a dream come true?" -- Captain Sensible, The Damned (from South Pacific's "Happy Talk")
participants (3)
-
Dan Mick -
Jay R. Ashworth -
John W Baxter