[Mailman-Developers] Virtual Domains Redux (w proposal)

Bob Puff bob at nleaudio.com
Fri Mar 10 03:04:59 CET 2006

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Msquared <sub1.dev.mailman at msquared.id.au>
To: mailman-developers at python.org
Sent: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:00:07 +0800
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Virtual Domains Redux (w proposal)

> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 08:16:39PM -0500, Bob Puff wrote:
> > I don't follow why one would need that, if you already separated based on
> > email domain.  In other words, if you had list at sussex.com,
> > list at physics.sussex.com, and list at english.sussex.com, why not:
> > 
> > /lists/sussex.com/list
> > /lists/physics.sussex.com/list
> > /lists/english.sussex.com/list
> Scope of ownership and management.
> These might have different owners:
>   /lists/mine.example.net/
>   /lists/yours.example.net/
> but these might have the same owner:
>   /lists/dept1.foo.org/
>   /lists/dept2.foo.org/
> If it were possible to control access/ownership/etc according to
> subdirectories, this would allow you to grant control of subdirectories
> from the appropriate level down:
>   /lists/org/foo/  is for *.foo.org
>   /lists/net/example/mine/ is for me
>   /lists/net/exmaple/yours/ is for you
> Of course I don't know if mailman yet allows such delegation of 
> control, but it would be nifty...
> You could still control access like that through unix/linux directory
> ownerships, for example, though.

I think we're drifting here from a logical format.  If there is to be shared
ownership, I think that needs to be done with a different database.  It could
be a nightmare from the admin side if you group things by who wants to own
what lists, rather than by domain.  I believe the initial point behind the
start of this is that list at foo and list at bar should be able to cohabitate on
the same install.


More information about the Mailman-Developers mailing list