I recently rebooted my Fedora server. It has a copy of Mailman 2.1.8 installed. I usually have to restart mailman by running mailmanctl after rebooting.
How do I add mailmanctl as a program that will run on boot? I don't want to have to run mailmanctl every time I reboot the server.
Since the last reboot, I started the mailmanctl program, but it doesn't look like the mailman server is running properly. The web admin pages are running, but it looks like some parts of mailman have not started. Specifically, the subscribe/unsubscribe requests are not being processed. What other processes need to be started in order for mailman to run properly?
I recently rebooted my Fedora server. It has a copy of Mailman 2.1.8 installed. I usually have to restart mailman by running mailmanctl after rebooting.
How do I add mailmanctl as a program that will run on boot? I don't want to have to run mailmanctl every time I reboot the server.
Since the last reboot, I started the mailmanctl program, but it doesn't look like the mailman server is running properly. The web admin pages are running, but it looks like some parts of mailman have not started. Specifically, the subscribe/unsubscribe requests are not being processed. What other processes need to be started in order for mailman to run properly?
Nevermind about question 2. I found out that the subscription confirmation email that is being sent to the mailman admin is the only part that was turned off. The actual server is running properly.
I still need to know how to make mailman run by default on startup.
Run chkconfig is where the start ups go
something like
chkconfig -l 345 mailmain
It has been a while.. Do man chkconfig
DAve
-----Original Message----- From: mailman-users-bounces+dave=hamnet.org@python.org [mailto:mailman-users-bounces+dave=hamnet.org@python.org]On Behalf Of Ki Song Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:18 To: mailman-users@python.org Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman not working after reboot
I recently rebooted my Fedora server. It has a copy of Mailman 2.1.8 installed. I usually have to restart mailman by running mailmanctl after rebooting.
How do I add mailmanctl as a program that will run on boot? I don't want to have to run mailmanctl every time I reboot the server.
Since the last reboot, I started the mailmanctl program, but it doesn't look like the mailman server is running properly. The web admin pages are running, but it looks like some parts of mailman have not started. Specifically, the subscribe/unsubscribe requests are not being processed. What other processes need to be started in order for mailman to run properly?
Nevermind about question 2. I found out that the subscription confirmation email that is being sent to the mailman admin is the only part that was turned off. The actual server is running properly.
I still need to know how to make mailman run by default on startup.
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/dave%40hamnet.org
Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
On 1/29/07, Ki Song <ki@knifecenter.com> wrote:
- How do I add mailmanctl as a program that will run on boot? I don't want to have to run mailmanctl every time I reboot the server.
This is strictly a Fedora question, not a Mailman question. You'd be best served addressing it to a Fedora mailing list.
--
- Patrick Bogen
At 12:01 PM -0500 1/29/07, Ki Song wrote:
I recently rebooted my Fedora server. It has a copy of Mailman 2.1.8 installed. I usually have to restart mailman by running mailmanctl after rebooting.
- How do I add mailmanctl as a program that will run on boot? I don't want to have to run mailmanctl every time I reboot the server.
That's a Fedora problem. I suggest you use their resources to find the answer to this question.
If you have Mailman questions, we should be able to help with those. But we can't provide support for OS-specific issues.
-- Brad Knowles <brad@shub-internet.org>, Consultant & Author Co-author of SAGE Booklet #15 "Internet Postmaster: Duties and Responsibilities" Founding Member and Platinum Individual Sponsor of LOPSA: <http://www.lopsa.org> Papers: <http://tinyurl.com/tj6q4> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>
Brad Knowles writes:
If you have Mailman questions, we should be able to help with those. But we can't provide support for OS-specific issues.
However, members of this list often do; eg, this thread got 3 answers.
How about starting an OS-specific section of the FAQ, similar to the MTA Integration section? Then you could change the above reply to "OS-specific issues are off-topic on this list; they are best asked on the channels provided by that OS. However, you can find some user-contributed answers in the OS-specific section of the FAQ."
Also, encourage those who do provide answers on-list to add them to the FAQ and answer on list with "I just added an answer to that question to the FAQ".
At 12:30 PM +0900 1/31/07, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
If you have Mailman questions, we should be able to help with those. But we can't provide support for OS-specific issues.
However, members of this list often do; eg, this thread got 3 answers.
Of which two were "We can't help you with OS-specific issues", and I don't know if the third was actually helpful or not -- we have no evidence that the OP saw that response, or that it was helpful to the OP.
How about starting an OS-specific section of the FAQ, similar to the MTA Integration section? Then you could change the above reply to "OS-specific issues are off-topic on this list; they are best asked on the channels provided by that OS. However, you can find some user-contributed answers in the OS-specific section of the FAQ."
There are already some OS-specific items listed in the FAQ. I see no reason why those could not be expanded (where appropriate), or new OS-specific items added.
I'm not sure we need a separate OS-specific section, however. I don't know how that would affect the FAQ organization structure. Currently, I think we are putting OS-specific questions in the appropriate section and then trying to make sure that we label them appropriately.
Moreover, I think we need to be talking about platform-specific questions, and not just OS-specific. For example, cPanel is a platform, and can presumably run on multiple different OSes. If we were to have a separate section for these kinds of questions, I think we would want to put all platform-specific and OS-specific questions together.
Also, encourage those who do provide answers on-list to add them to the FAQ and answer on list with "I just added an answer to that question to the FAQ".
My general policy has been to answer things directly two or three times, but beyond that to then summarize the responses and put them into the FAQ, and thereafter to primarily refer to the answers that are already in the FAQ.
Do we need a FAQ entry on what the proper way is to answer a question?
-- Brad Knowles <brad@shub-internet.org>, Consultant & Author Co-author of SAGE Booklet #15 "Internet Postmaster: Duties and Responsibilities" Founding Member and Platinum Individual Sponsor of LOPSA: <http://www.lopsa.org> Papers: <http://tinyurl.com/tj6q4> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>
Brad Knowles writes:
However, members of this list often do; eg, this thread got 3 answers.
Of which two were "We can't help you with OS-specific issues",
Of course. My point is that people do respond, not that it's very helpful; I'm looking for ways to save some of that effort.
Moreover, I think we need to be talking about platform-specific questions, and not just OS-specific. For example, cPanel is a platform, and can presumably run on multiple different OSes. If we were to have a separate section for these kinds of questions, I think we would want to put all platform-specific and OS-specific questions together.
Right. I actually thought of the cPanel angle, but left it out.
Do we need a FAQ entry on what the proper way is to answer a question?
Yes. It's a policy issue. Sometimes the OP will respond to the "nice person who actually answered my question", and start a thread. I think providing answers to off-topic FAQs is a Good Thing[tm], but it should be kept off-list and it shouldn't clutter the main sections of the FAQ.
participants (5)
-
Brad Knowles -
Dave Foran -
Ki Song -
Patrick Bogen -
Stephen J. Turnbull