Re: [Mailman-Users] Duplicate Messages
David Andrews <dandrews@visi.com> wrote:
If I had to do this, I would do the following:
Create a new Mailman list - all-subscribers.
Make a list of all subscribers to all lists. I already have a shell script (with awk files) that produces a list every hour that contains lines:
Tue Aug 4 13:00:01 CDT 2009 ---------- list1 user1@example.com list1 user2@example.com ---------- list2 user1@example.com list2 user3@example.com ----------I use this file to see if a given address is subscribed to any lists.
Extract the e-mail addresses from that list, pipe through "uniq", and save the file. You could do special processing to remove certain addresses from this file.
Use that file to
./sync_members -w=no -g=no -d=no -a=no -f FILENAME all-subscribersto synchronize (silently) the membership of the all-subscribers list, which contains all the members of all the lists.
Barry S. Finkel Computing and Information Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory Phone: +1 (630) 252-7277 9700 South Cass Avenue Facsimile:+1 (630) 252-4601 Building 222, Room D209 Internet: BSFinkel@anl.gov Argonne, IL 60439-4828 IBMMAIL: I1004994
At 02:08 PM 8/4/2009, Barry Finkel wrote:
This was the only response I got, and appreciated. Is this the only possible approach? I am not sure I want to subscribe people to a list they didn't subscribe to, although I am considering it. Any other approaches -- or do I have to wait to MM3 which is who knows when.
Dave
David Andrews wrote:
You can see the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/TIA9>, but the approach there is essentially the same.
The alternative is to use Mailman's regular_exclude_lists feature (under Non-digest options) as mentioned in the above FAQ, but with 150+ lists (or even merely a dozen), this probably isn't viable.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
At 03:29 PM 8/9/2009, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Mark:
The FAQ says:
a better umbrella list as long as you are not concerned about digest members.
Using the above example, create the list "Threesomes" with no members, and in Threesomes' Non-digest options -> regular_include_lists put
ThreeBlindMice@mylists.com ThreeBears@mylists.com ThreeMenNaTub@mylists.com
Then, a post to "Threesomes" will be sent to the regular (nondigest) members of the above three lists without duplication.
Above you say this approach may not be viable for me. Is this because of the work involved in my entering and updating the list of lists in regular_include_lists , or because of something else I am not aware of. If it would work for me, I am willing to do the work -- I am not as technical as some, and wouldn't want to mess around with scripts unless I have to. This approach would also allow me to have several versions of the almost-all-subscribers lists, including or excluding certain lists.
Thanks for your help as always!
Dave
David Andrews
Actually, I retract what I said. I didn't carefully read that part of the FAQ (which I wrote - how quickly we forget <sigh>) and I was thinking of using regular_exclude_lists which is a way of avoiding duplicates when messages are cross posted to multiple lists, but which grows in complexity as the number of lists grows. But that isn't what you want here.
Yes, it would work, and the only issues are maintaining the list of regular_include_lists in the super-list(s) and the fact that a post to a super list won't reach anyone who is a digest subscriber on all the sub lists of which she is a member.
So, if the digest issue is not a concern, it should work fine.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
At 02:08 PM 8/4/2009, Barry Finkel wrote:
This was the only response I got, and appreciated. Is this the only possible approach? I am not sure I want to subscribe people to a list they didn't subscribe to, although I am considering it. Any other approaches -- or do I have to wait to MM3 which is who knows when.
Dave
David Andrews wrote:
You can see the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/TIA9>, but the approach there is essentially the same.
The alternative is to use Mailman's regular_exclude_lists feature (under Non-digest options) as mentioned in the above FAQ, but with 150+ lists (or even merely a dozen), this probably isn't viable.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
At 03:29 PM 8/9/2009, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Mark:
The FAQ says:
a better umbrella list as long as you are not concerned about digest members.
Using the above example, create the list "Threesomes" with no members, and in Threesomes' Non-digest options -> regular_include_lists put
ThreeBlindMice@mylists.com ThreeBears@mylists.com ThreeMenNaTub@mylists.com
Then, a post to "Threesomes" will be sent to the regular (nondigest) members of the above three lists without duplication.
Above you say this approach may not be viable for me. Is this because of the work involved in my entering and updating the list of lists in regular_include_lists , or because of something else I am not aware of. If it would work for me, I am willing to do the work -- I am not as technical as some, and wouldn't want to mess around with scripts unless I have to. This approach would also allow me to have several versions of the almost-all-subscribers lists, including or excluding certain lists.
Thanks for your help as always!
Dave
David Andrews
Actually, I retract what I said. I didn't carefully read that part of the FAQ (which I wrote - how quickly we forget <sigh>) and I was thinking of using regular_exclude_lists which is a way of avoiding duplicates when messages are cross posted to multiple lists, but which grows in complexity as the number of lists grows. But that isn't what you want here.
Yes, it would work, and the only issues are maintaining the list of regular_include_lists in the super-list(s) and the fact that a post to a super list won't reach anyone who is a digest subscriber on all the sub lists of which she is a member.
So, if the digest issue is not a concern, it should work fine.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (3)
-
b19141＠anl.gov -
David Andrews -
Mark Sapiro