[Mailman-Developers] mailman-developers@python.org

[Brad Knowles]

At 11:51 PM -0800 2004/01/29, moron wrote:

>  Howdy.  Again, how does including an extra header help the end user
>  experience?

	It doesn't.  Enabling personalization does.

>               The original complaint was due to AOL being bass ackwards and
>  somehow feeling that an email address in an arbitrary header was more
>  "private" than the To field (which of course it is not).   In this scenario,
>  the "customization" was simply to add the sender address back into the
>  message which is hardly making the end experience any better (it should
>  already be in something like "envelope-to" anyway).

	That is pretty bloody stupid, and is the real issue that we 
should be discussing.

>  The problem is AOL though, not Mailman.  Solution?  Switch to a real provider
>  that uses RFC compliant software.  And be vocal as to why you are leaving.

	Your recipients are where they are.  You can't really make them 
move.  You can refuse to accept any recipients on AOL, but that's 
about it.

>  The information they need is that AOL is running a broken SMTP server, no?

	Not a broken SMTP server, per se.  It's broken policies with 
regards to handling spam and mailing lists, and their stupid 
sanitization methods which they are asking you to work around so that 
the very information they sanitized is exposed elsewhere in the 
message.

	Nevertheless, I was working at AOL when they implemented their 
current SMTP server, and I can confirm that it is pretty badly broken 
in plenty of other ways.

>  Well, it depends on membership of course and the total number of lists.  It's
>  big enough for me to look after.

	I guess that if you're running all the mailing lists for 
apple.com, then you don't really care about increased bandwidth 
charges, or any of the other increased costs of running the mailing 
lists.

>>  >  I also wonder what effect it will have
>>  > on archiving
>>
>>  none.
>
>  Are you sure of that?  I thought that Hypermail based its threading 
>on message
>  IDs which would be different in this case leading to far larger arrays and
>  such to keep track of what article was connected to what.

	No, Chuq is right about this.  The archiving is done on message 
input, which is not changed as a result of personalization on message 
output.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at 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(+++)