Rick/Vicki, et al.
I successfully use Eudora and even Netscape to moderate majordomo lists.
Simply use Eudora's "Redirect" menu option, put the Approved: password
at the top of the headers you want (usually above Date:, keeping
From: and so forth, no blank lines), delete any headers you don't want.
You can have a blank line before the actual message, but I don't think
you need it (maybe it does insert it for you).
With Netscape, you can use "Edit Message as New" and do about the
same thing. You just have to adjust where you're sending the message
to, which is the posting address.
Once you get it figured out, it works fine.
/Dorothy
Rick Green wrote:
> Vicki,
> I can read a lot of frustration in these recent posts. I wish I could
> be more help, but I'm not a Eudora user, so I can't give any specifics.
>
> I will, however, share my prognostication on what's happening and why:
>
> In order for majordomo to see and remove the Approved: header, it needs to
> be in the headers, not in the body of the message. The problem stems from
> the fact(?) that Eudora does not allow you to edit the headers directly,
> but only gives you access to the 'value' portion of specific headers, and
> the body of the message. The standard-required blank line between the
> headers and the body is inserted by Eudora.
>
> In the docs, it recommends placing the Approved: line as the first line of
> the body, then repeating at least the To:, From:, and Subject: lines
> immediately following that, or preferrably all the headers from the
> original message, then inserting a blank line and the text of the message.
>
> Essentially what this accomplishes is creating a complete second message
> within the body of the first message. So it ends up going out like this:
>
> Blank line
> Eudora provided headers
> blank line
> Approved: line
> /other valid headers you copy or build/
> blank line
> Body of message
>
> According to my understanding of mail standards, a message begins with a
> blank line, followed by a series of recognizable headers, followed by
> another blank line, followed by text. Sendmail will see this as two
> messages. The headers that Eudora provides will eventually be thrown away
> as a message with no text, and the Approved: line will be seen in the
> packet of valid headers which will be associated with the body of text
> below it.
>
> DISCLAIMER: Again, I'm writing this as my speculation only, based on
> little more than a newbie's experience with the major and sendmail. I
> don't know if this clarifies or confuses the issue, but I contribute it in
> the hope that It will stimulate feedback that will help us all
> understand the underlying process that forces us into such contrivances.
>
> If the approved: line went out to the list, then it was obviously seen by
> resend, yet not stripped out. (Or does resend pass on everything
> originating from the moderator?) I would tend to agree with you that this
> is a bug. If the Approved: message is detected whether it is in the header
> or the body of the message, yet it is only stripped if it's in the header,
> it leads to problems and contrived procedures. If the detection and
> stripping were done in the same block of code, then it would be easier to
> insure that one action would not happen without the other, and if the
> Approved: line were misplaced, it would simply bounce again to the
> moderator, and not be sent to the list.
>
> And the expedient solution:
>
> The 'approve' script works nicely with pine. Have you got an old 386SX or
> better lying around? Linux is quite usable on a 386SX-20 in character
> mode. If you don't already have one, I'll send you a Linux CD complete
> with perl and pine, and you can set up a more convenient environment. I
> trust you'll soon find more and more that's friendlier in Linux than
> windows, and you'll eventually decide to install it on your more
> state-of-the-art hardware.
>
> --
> Rick Green
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Microsoft has just announced it is renaming Windows NT version 5 to
> "Windows 2000."
> Is that the ultimate millennium bug or what?
References:
|
|
