Mailman 3 October 2002 - Mailman-Users

Re: OFFTOPIC Re: [Mailman-Users] Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)
by Jay Sekora Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

[Chuq's content reordered somewhat to suit the flow of my replies.] > > I don't mind the subject-munging that mailman does if the list owner > > adds an identifying tag because that's added to the existing header > > the composer typed; the original information is still there. > OTOH, I *really* hate subject munging. here's why: my research shows > that the subject line is the A-number-1 determinator of whether a user > opens a piece of email or not. That's THE … [View More]key item of information for > whether it gets deleted out of the summary listing unread or not. Actually, I shouldn't have said I don't mind it. I should have said I minded it a little bit, but not a lot. But I'd mind it a lot more if the munging actually *removed* some of the text the user put there. As it is, it's an annoyance, but I can still get the original information (although it might be messed up somewhat by line-wrapping). Something analagous in the To: and Cc: lines would be if Mailman changed: From: Jay Sekora <jay(a)ccs.neu.edu> To: mailman-users(a)python.org to From: Jay Sekora via mailman-users at python.org <jay(a)ccs.neu.edu> To: mailman-users(a)python.org or to From: Jay Sekora <jay(a)ccs.neu.edu> To: mailman-users(a)python.org (for chuqui(a)plaidworks.com) Both of those options would annoy me, but in both cases they add information rather than subtracting it. But my understanding is that the new personalization mechanisms will make the following sets of headers indistinguishable, if you(a)example.org is subscribed to list(a)example.org: From: me(a)example.org To: you(a)example.org Cc: list(a)example.org From: me(a)example.org To: list(a)example.org To me, that's a *HUGE* distinction in the intent of the author. If I were composing mail for a list that did this sort of rewriting, I'd probably eventually feel compelled to paraphrase the header information in the body of the message, along the lines of "(This message is for <you(a)example.org>, including the list in case anybody else is interested.)" or something like that. > To me, [subject rewriting is] a much bigger sin than regularizing how > the To and CC are presented, because if nothing else, that's an > attempt to make it easier to use that information without depending > on how the original user presented it. After all, you're dependin on > them doing the to: list, CC: you, and while that might be true, it's > not guaranteed true. And MLMs have played with it as well. This is > just a new take on how to structure it. In my opinion, the From:, To:, Cc:, and Subject: headings are all equally "sacred"; they all contain information chosen by the composer of the message. And if you rewrite the To: and Cc: headers because you assume message composers are too stupid to use them properly, you're ruining things for the (vast majority in my experience) people who do use them properly. If the theory is that RFC822 headers should be thrown out _in toto_ and we should start over from scratch, well, that's interesting an interesting research topic (and I think current Internet email standards may be nearing the end of their shelf life), but I don't think it's realistic for existing mailing lists. > > Do you think it would make sense, on most lists, to *replace* the > > subject with (eg) "Subject: Mail from $sender to $listname on $date"? > > That's the same sort of thing. > No. I argue the opposite, that subject line is one of the headers taht > I consider MOST untouchable. And I see From:, To:, and Cc: in the same category. If I were forced to throw away one of those four, it would be Cc:, but if I had to throw away two of those four, they'd be Cc: and Subject:. > > I'm assuming that the person who typed in the message put the list > > address where s/he thought it belonged. I want to *know* where that > > person thought it belonged. > then why don't you care what the person put in the subject line? I do, and I was using the issue of the subject line to explain how I felt about the To: line. In an ideal world, the list software wouldn't mess with either one. In a pragmatic world, I guess I'd be OK with the list adding some commentary to To: or Cc:, the way it does with Subject:, as long as it didn't actually move things around from one header to another, but I wouldn't be thrilled with it. > addresses are -- addresses. Addresses represent people, or groups of people, and humans make distinctions among people and groups of people. Who a message is addressed to is a huge and crucial part of the social context of the message. The following two messages are very different: To: mailman-users(a)python.org The problem of drug and alcohol abuse in America's youth is a serious one, but I think there are few problems that can't be solved by judicious application of pretzels. and To: president(a)whitehouse.gov Cc: mailman-users(a)python.org The problem of drug and alcohol abuse in America's youth is a serious one, but I think there are few problems that can't be solved by judicious application of pretzels. Those two messages are significantly different in tone even in the unlikely event that <president(a)whitehouse.gov> happens to be subscribed to mailman-users. > The subject line is the author's own > thought on the piece of email. And the To: and Cc: headers are the author's own thought about who the email is for, and that's very important information. > To/cc/bcc is really an artificial construct in the email world, > anyway, a hangover from the paper days. But those conventions existed in the days of paper memos because people felt they communicated something important. We still need to communicate the same meaning one way or another, and there's a widespread, widely accepted means of doing that in email. If we throw that away, or break its usefulness for that purpose, people writing and reading email will need to find a new mechanism to accomplish the same thing. > The subject line is the author's knock on your front door. I pay much more attention to the From: line, for what it's worth. FWIW, Jay [View Less]

3 2

Re: [Mailman-Users] Re: Change to 2.1b4 for "personalisation" of to:
by barry＠python.org Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

>>>>> "fuzzy" == <fuzzy(a)pooh.asarian.org> writes: fuzzy> It does lose me one benefit of using mailing lists, fuzzy> (having my ISP do actual delivery, so my DSL only fuzzy> has to send 1 copy of outbound list email with lots fuzzy> of envelope rcpt-to's). With this setup, every fuzzy> target address will have to be connected to fuzzy> separately. Lots more "work" for my DSL. You're right that personalization (+ verp) requires … [View More]

1 0

New list Problems
by Fawad Khan Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

I am posting this one again: I created a new list without any problems but now when I send a message to that list it is not getting archived. When I go to the webserver ad look at the error when trying to go to the archive page, it tells me that : File does not exist: /scratch/mailman/install/archives/public/nic-list When I go to this directory the file is there and linked to the private directory nic-list -> /scratch/mailman/install/archives/private/nic-list nic-list.mbox -> /… [View More]

1 0

FW: [Mailman-Users] virtual domain mailmans?
by Bob Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

Hi there, This is the third such message that I received in the past day, since the list was upgraded. I don't know why my address was in the "From" field, since I didn't send the referenced message to the list in the first place, and didn't reply to it in the second. Also, do I know the originator of the message to the list, nor the person who is complaining about getting the messages and not being part of the list. Please, Mr. List Moderator/Owner/Coordinator, fix this problem so this guy … [View More]

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Users] Re: Change to 2.1b4 for "personalisation" of to:
by alex wetmore Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Fuzzy wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Matthew Davis wrote: > > Or the new way 2.1b4 sends mail (feature or bug?, barry will know). > > > > If you look the to: is your address and the cc: is the mailing list. > > It does lose me one benefit of using mailing lists, > (having my ISP do actual delivery, so my DSL only > has to send 1 copy of outbound list email with lots > of envelope rcpt-to's). With this setup, every > target address will … [View More]

1 0

FW: [Mailman-Users] virtual domain mailmans?
by Bob Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

Hi there, This is the third such message that I received in the past day, since the list was upgraded. I don't know why my address was in the "From" field, since I didn't send the referenced message to the list in the first place, and didn't reply to it in the second. Also, do I know the originator of the message to the list, nor the person who is complaining about getting the messages and not being part of the list. Please, Mr. List Moderator/Owner/Coordinator, fix this problem so this guy … [View More]

1 0

Fwd: [Mailman-Users] mailman archives problem unsolved
by chris colombo Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

HELP >From: Spam account <spam(a)fisher.forestry.uga.edu> >To: chris_colombo(a)hotmail.com >CC: Mailman mailing list management users <mailman-users(a)python.org> >Subject: [Mailman-Users] mailman archives problem unsolved >Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:40:47 -0500 > >I have followed the instructions in the Mailman FAQ, and have found >various postings in this list archive, but I still can't get my mailman >list archives working. Than is, I still have some … [View More]

2 1

Mailman & bulkmail?
by David Gordon Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

I'm thinking of moving a mailing list from Majordomo to Mailman. I know very little about either, less about Mailman. Currently our host does not count mail against our bandwith quota. We are moving to a new server where it will be counted. I have no idea how much we use or how to work it out. Say we have 500 subscribers and a 2k message is posted. How much bandwidth did we use? I'm told with Majordomo it's 500 x 2k. But if we were to run Bulkmail with Majordomo that would decrease to 10k. … [View More]

1 0

spamassassin
by Dave Stern - Former Rocket Scientist Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

Has anyone incorporated spamassassin with mailman? If so, do you have any detailed instructions? Thanks =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- generated by /dev/dave -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= David Stern University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies

2 1

Re: [Mailman-Users] Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)
by Brian Read Oct. 29, 2002

Oct. 29, 2002

At 12:51 29/10/2002, you wrote: >At 11:39 29/10/2002, Brian Read wrote: >>Hi >> >>I have a set-up where the domain name is different to the mailing address >>name. >> >>Mailman seems to have set-up the mail addresses and the list admin URLs >>ok, but it gets the Archive URL wrong. It is using the email hostname,. >>not the domain name that it uses for the list admin etc. >> >>I have tried editrting mm_cfg.py, the … [View More]

1 0