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

[Bob Puff]

---------- 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.

Bob