GLeblanc at cu-portland.edu
Wed Sep 6 20:11:20 CEST 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Jarrell [mailto:jarrell at vt.edu]
> At 10:24 AM 9/6/00 -0700, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > I just went to see if there was anybody on the lists on my
> > server (it's just
> > gone into production with 2.0beta5 recently), and I'm a bit
> > confused. I ran
> > list_lists, to see the lists, and then ran list_members.
> > Here's what I got:
> > [root at list bin]# ./list_lists
> > 3 matching mailing lists found:
> > Eng223 - British Literature II
> > Eng315 - The World Novel
> > Greg - [no description available]
> > [root at list bin]# ./list_members Eng223
> > No such list "Eng223"
> > [root at list bin]#
> > Huh? Does it do that because there are no members for the
> > list, or what?
> No, it's a user interface issue. list_lists is displaying
> the published name of the list;
> Eng223's internal list name is eng223; Eng223 is just the
> "pretty" name, which can be
> set on the admin page.
> list_members, however, expects the internal name of the list.
> There is no "Eng223" directory
> with a marshalled database. However, if you'd done a
> list_members eng223, you'd either get
> a list of subscribers, or just a blank line showing there were none.
Would it be logical to add a switch to list_lists that would give some
useful information, rather than the pretty information that it gives now?
Or would it be better to hack list_members so that it's smart enough to
understand the list names that list_lists spits out? Later,
More information about the Mailman-Users