[Mailman-Users] Confirmation logging

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Kip Warner writes:

 > Hey Stephen. Thanks for your help. I passed on your comments to DH and
 > this is what they said:
 > 
 >         The web interface has the same problem as the mail interface --
 >         the logs rotate and are not available after a certain span of
 >         time. Everything else in [Stephen's] email is theoretical and
 >         not applicable to our installation as it exists now.

So they're changing their story!

AFAICS, log rotation is *not* a Mailman function -- it's a *host*
function.  (Mark will know for sure, I'm not that familiar with the
logging code, but I can't see any provision for rotation in either the
logging code or in our stock cronjobs.)  On my Debian GNU/Linux host,
it's done via logrotate.  In any case, if they want the logs, *they*
can keep the logs.  *They* have root, *they* own the disk, *they*
should know about cron.

I don't know how important Dreamhost is to you, what features they
offer.  But it seems to me that either they don't understand the
services they offer, or they're merely offering specious excuses that
they hope you'll accept for not doing what you want.  I'd consider
looking for somebody who *does* know what they're offering (but then,
I run my own hosts for exactly that reason -- I am not 100% informed
about everything I do, but I know what I don't know and where to find
more information at need).

 > It just seems goofy, given that they allow us to use Mailman for a
 > discussion list, but not as an announcement list. The only practical
 > difference between the former and latter is that only one person is
 > typically allowed to post in the latter case, whereas both situations
 > can potentially have a post with thousands of recipients.

Dealing with spam turns otherwise sane sysadmins into blubbering
goofballs.  I sympathize with you, not with them, but I have to admit
that keeping up with the spammers is a full-time job -- or two!, and
they have other work to do.  In a world where people blacklist whole
netblocks for a few spams, they're seriously at risk.

There's a fine line dividing announce-only lists from spamming.  I'm
not sure why they think keeping IP addresses is going to help them
draw the line; I think they're just grasping at any straw.  Or, as I
suggested earlier, maybe it's just an excuse.

Sorry I can't be of more help, but I think this is a political
problem, not a technical one.

Regards,
Steve