[Mailman-Developers] Feedback for mailman developers

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Adrian Bye writes:

 > I felt at the time it was an important project.  I was told it was
 > not, so I made it myself.  And, it was refused to be added to the
 > main fork of mailman which was quite frustrating.

Actually, in the thread in the archives you were not told it was
"unimportant", you were told it was a bad idea, that shouldn't be
added to the Mailman mainline, and one prominent developer's bad
experiences with a very similar system (which was implied to be more
robust than yours is) were described.  You didn't respond, so as far
as I can see it was left out by default, not actually refused.  There
is a difference.

I see no reason why the reasons for not adding the proposed feature
given in that thread have been invalidated.  If you have significant
experience with successes with your system, and are willing to
describe it, and are willing to address the perceived defects in the
light of your experience, I'm sure your patch will be reconsidered.

If you don't, declaring your patch to be "often requested" and "a
necessary precondition for the resources needed to turn Mailman into a
system capable of handling millions of messages a day" is not going to
help your case.

Another way to put it is the Mailman developers all have a lot of
successful experience with the policy of implementing standards and
best practices.  There's no standard here so experience is crucial to
demonstrating best practice.  Please report yours!