[ Follow-ups to Mj-workers ]
[ Muni Savyon writes: ]
>
> To make it super-easy to subscribe to a list, I'd like to set
> up an address: mylist-subscribe@mydom.org . The intention is that
> people will send email to this address and will not have to
> put anything in the message in order to subscribe . (a similar
> mechanism can be set to unsubscribe) .
>
> 1. Does MD support it today ? (I looked at the code and I don't
> think is does) . A -c option (for command) would be nice, so I
> could put in /etc/aliases:
> mylist-subscribe: "|.../majordomo majordomo -l mylist -c subscribe"
And Jason complains about the "-l list" option creating havoc with the
command parser!! :-) No, it's not supported, but the development plan
for Mj is to modularize things such that low(er)-level functions are
available which should make implementing such a feature relatively easy.
> 2. A way to do it is to copy majordomo to md-sub, make code changes
> to have it do only 'subscribe' operations (call do-subscribe)
> and have the following line in aliases:
> mylist-subscribe: "|.../majordomo md-sub -l mylist" .
> Is there a better way to do it ?
Adding a command line option to default the command, much like -l
defaults the list, would be more esthetically appealing IMO, but
it might require disabling parsing the message body to keep from
complicating the command syntax beyond comprehension.
It adds more overhead, but one could also have a filter like deliver (or
maybe procmail) simply replace any body with the appropriate command
before passing the (modified) message on to Mj.
> 3. Is it a good idea to have one-stop-subscribing in the first place?
> I can't imagine that no one thought about that before, so am I
> under-estemating the inteligence of potential subscribers ?
> According to my expeience, when it comes to human interface, it's
> always good to simplify things .
Wasn't it Albert Einstein who said "Make things as simple as possible,
but no more than that"? Some list manager programs accept commands in
the subject field too. It's mainly a design decision trade off as to
which way allows the greatest versatility. Your way puts more burden on
sendmail aliases and setup while not allowing reasonably intelligent
users to subscribe an address different than the one they're sending the
request from. By itself, I agree that it sounds like a good idea, but
taken to its logical conclusion, an address for every user command for
every list, it seems a bit absurd.
--
Dave Wolfe
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
