Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Users
(March 1997)
 

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

Subject: Re: Worth running MJ at <list>-request address?
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:16:34 -0600 (CST)
To: voges @ drama . unp . ac . za (Martin Voges)
Cc: majordomo-users @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <s3362f6d.066@smtp.unp.ac.za> from "Martin Voges" at Mar 21, 97 03:21:09 pm
Reply-to: Dave Wolfe <david_wolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com>

[ Martin Voges writes: ]
> 
> I'd appreciate any info about the (dis)advantages of running majordomo
> via aliases at the <listname>-request address, please.  Is it just a
> historical option, or is there real value in that approach?

Since we run two Mj installations under two different aliases (internal
and external), enabling the list-request aliases has really helped
reduce users' confusion and frustration. I only wish I'd done it when we
first set up Mj instead of trying to retrain everyone. Since I has the
list-request aliases defined to invoke request-answer anyway, it didn't
really add anything to the aliases to do it.

-- 
 Dave Wolfe


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Worth running MJ at <list>-request address?
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk@QueerNet.ORG>
Next: Re: Peculiar Majordomo failures
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Worth running MJ at <list>-request address?
From: Rich Pieri <rich.pieri@prescienttech.com>
Next: (no subject)
From: "Donald D. Bustamante" <dbustama@psl.nmsu.edu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com