I don't see what Andrew's patch gains, since you can do the same thing
by tacking ",nobody" onto the end of the alias in /etc/aliases.
The addition to the mkdigest command is good because it frees digest
from having a predictable outgoing address.
That's my take on it.
Kevin Kelleher
On 19 Sep 1996, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "AD" == Andrew Dunstan <amd001@its.maynick.com.au> writes:
>
> AD> From what I can see there is now an optional argument to mkdigest that
> AD> allows the list admin to specify a secret alias that corresponds to the
> AD> real list. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
>
> I'm ambivalent. There is certainly no harm in giving it to the list owner,
> but there is some confusion possible. I figured that most of the time
> mkdigest gets run out of cron anyway so it doesn't make much difference. I
> can also devise some contrived examples where the ability to specify the
> outgoing alias is useful. When I proposed the feature I asked if it was
> sufficient and there wasn't much comment; it's only three lines of code
> plus the documentation updates.
>
> AD> With sendmail v8 this seems to work fine. (I don't really use "foobar"
> AD> btw :-)) Nothing escapes as far as I can see, including in the
> AD> Received: headers.
>
> Unfortunately this sort of codes in Sendmail, which we don't really want to
> do.
>
> AD> Any comments on this scheme? Or is there something I'm missing which
> AD> would make it a good idea to put this stuff in the hands of list
> AD> admins?
>
> Again, I'm ambivalent. I don't run any digests. I also don't have any
> outgoing aliases since I call TLB instead of sendmail in the first place,
> so I'll basically defer to the wisdom of the list on this. What does
> everyone think? Does anyone think?
>
> - J<
>
References:
|
|
