[Mailman-Developers] MM3: list disabling/enabling?
barry at list.org
Fri Jul 15 21:12:59 CEST 2011
On Jul 13, 2011, at 01:34 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>Barry Warsaw writes:
> > But maybe the OP has a different use case in mind and we could have a need for
> > both a long-term, permanently failing retired lists, and shorter term,
> > temporarily failing disabled lists.
>I don't really understand under what circumstances a list owner would
>want to disable the *whole list* and at the same time leave retries up
>to arbitrary MTAs out on the Internet. The poster may or may not get
>a DSN. Etc, etc.
I agree. I think I like the term "retire" better than "disable" to more
clearly designate a step in a list's life between active and deleted.
A retired list would still exist, and people could (maybe?) still subscribe to
it, etc. I think the core wouldn't treat retired lists much different than
active lists except to either omit its aliases from regeneration, or give the
appropriate LMTP code. One thing to think about is how MTAs like Exim will
work since they don't use an alias file.
>OTOH, I can imagine that for some purposes you might want a different
>status code, and I don't see any good reason for making that
>configurable and then restricting it to 5xx. Rather, document it as
>"this SHOULD be a 5xx code (in the RFC 2119 sense, ie, with
>sufficient reason it could be a 4xx code, but we don't know of any
>examples offhand :-)."
Do you really think it needs to be configurable? I mean, if we can't think of
a reason to not make it 5xx, why not just wait for the first wishlist bug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Mailman-Developers