Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(March 1999)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Introduction / Questions
From: Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 14:52:16 -0500
To: Jeremy Blackman <loki @ maison-otaku . net>
Cc: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <>

At 09:06 PM 3/6/99 -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote:

>* One capability I gave Listar quite some time back was the ability to
>  decode alternative mail formats.  (In Listar's terminology, it's called
>  'humanize-mime'.)  This basically ensures that any posts to a list
>  with humanize-mime set true are in a nice, standard plaintext format,
>  and do not include binary attachments.  (Attachments that are a 
>  recognizable text format will be decoded and added to the main message
>  body.)  While I feel this is a useful option, I have heard one or two
>  complaints (usually from people who like to post binary files), that
>  this is a violation of their 'right to post in whatever format they
>  want'.  While the majority of users have not be displeased with the 
>  option (and some are in fact overjoyed it's there), I was curious if
>  any of the list maintainers out there thought that stripping binary
>  attachments was an ETHICAL problem?

They should get over it.  There is no ethical issue about doing this.  In
fact, I do it - had I discovered listar before I wrote demime, I would
probably have saved myself some work.

>* Password, versus other methods of authentication.  I lean towards a
>  'cookie' method similar to Majordomo's subscription confirmation
>  tickets.  This has the advantage of not requiring an administrator
>  to remember a password, and is less readily spoofable.  It has the
>  downside, however, of requiring two mail messages per administrative
>  session.  (One to retrieve the 'wrapper' for an admin session, and one
>  to submit it back and have it processed.)  Do other list admins
>  prefer a password method that requires only one message, or a more
>  secure method that requires two messages per admin session and doesn't
>  require a password to be memorized?

Before I know this, I wonder if it is possible to easily batch commands
using the cookie method?  For example, I just subscribed a bunch of people
to one list by making a shell one liner that inserted passwords and
subscribed them. Can I do that easily with cookies?

>* Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list.  A good thing,
>  or a bad thing?  It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
>  isn't that useful for qmail or Postfix.  It also tends to be less
>  memory-efficient.  My opinion is that it should be an option (since
>  sendmail IS fairly common), but disable-able for qmail and Postfix
>  installations, which do their own queue optimization.

Why is it ever bad?  Because the sort for large lists represents a memory
usage bubble?  In my case, I don't think it would matter.

Pasta is really just kibble, boiled until soft.
Nick Simicich or (last choice) -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

Indexed By Date Previous: Light bulb joke
From: Alan Deikman <>
Next: Re: Introduction / Questions
From: Jeremy Blackman <>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Introduction / Questions
From: Ray Jones <>
Next: Re: Introduction / Questions
From: Jeremy Blackman <>

Search Internet Search