Re: [Mailman-Developers] embedded html problem with large lists
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Brad Knowles wrote:
Read Barry's reply, which I believe was sent earlier today.
In short, Mailman doesn't do anything different in this respect, regardless of whether there is one recipient or a million. Something else must have happened.
I apologize -- I missed Barry's reply, and coincidentally didn't think my first post to this list ever made it past the moderator. Thank you to Brad and Berry for replying.
Both of you suggested it was not Mailman which caused this behavior.
From your experience, do you think that it could be my MTA, Sendmail 8.12.6? It is a fairly stock configuration. I know this is a bit off topic, but if anyone has any ideas here, I'd deeply appreciate a response (on or off list).
Keep up the good work with Mailman, it's a great piece of software!
Thanks again, Ryan
At 8:49 PM -0800 2004/01/22, ryan wrote:
From your experience, do you think that it could be my MTA, Sendmail 8.12.6? It is a fairly stock configuration. I know this is a bit off topic, but if anyone has any ideas here, I'd deeply appreciate a response (on or off list).
I'm pretty familiar with sendmail, and I can't think of anything
it might do that could cause this sort of problem.
In this case, don't interpret silence at ignoring you. Instead,
consider silence to be an acknowledgement that we have no clue as to what could have caused this problem, and we're not inclined to try to guess.
At best, we can tell you where we think the problem is not (i.e.,
not mailman, not sendmail). But beyond that, we have no clue. Well, I have no clue -- I really shouldn't be speaking for anyone else.
-- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 11:11, Brad Knowles wrote:
In this case, don't interpret silence at ignoring you. Instead, consider silence to be an acknowledgement that we have no clue as to what could have caused this problem, and we're not inclined to try to guess.
Seconded. :)
-Barry
participants (3)
-
Barry Warsaw
-
Brad Knowles
-
ryan