Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(September 2000)
 

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

Subject: Re: Development assistance offered (was Re: The future of majordomo)
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs @ math . uh . edu>
Date: 29 Sep 2000 22:24:32 -0500
To: bforum @ sulima . com
Cc: "'majordomo-users @ greatcircle . com'" <majordomo-users @ GreatCircle . COM>, "'majordomo-workers @ greatcircle . com'" <majordomo-workers @ GreatCircle . COM>, mj2-dev @ csf . colorado . edu
In-reply-to: "Bulletin Admin"'s message of "Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:09:11 -0400"
References: <4.3.1.0.20000929110148.00c94780@pop.climber.org> <200009292209110980.00E99ED4@smtp.sulima.com>
User-agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7

>>>>> "BA" == Bulletin Admin <bforum@sulima.com> writes:

BA> On the serious side .. I don't know anything about UNIX but have
BA> resources to help. I can create a download site for Majordomo if that
BA> is needed.

I think we're pretty flush with distribution sites.  But you can still help
if you can install the software, or even if you just want to read the
documentation.

BA> On the downside for me, I have an address that is kind of stuck
BA> somewhere I can't find to get rid of and it is generating lots of
BA> bounces. I have manually searched the list, requested the system to
BA> unsubscribe this user but no where to be found.

Occasionally this happens.  I think Mj2 would solve this particular problem
for you, because addresses are periodically probed individually (with
configurable frequency) using unique envelope senders.  (The envelope
sender is where the bounce goes.)  Bounces are parsed for you, and when I
can finish the last bit of stuff I'm working on now, will also be
automatically dealt with.

BA> I have played with majo config file but can't find a way to control
BA> this meaning forcing subscriber responses to go the list instead of to
BA> one person.

In general, you can't control what any particular mail client will do.  You
can set reply_to, but this causes other problems.  Firstly you can get
loops, where some busted autoresponder sends "out of town" replies to the
list, and then replies to those, etc.  Secondly, you torque off folks who
don't have crappy clients and understand that Reply-To: is a bad thing for
a list to have.

Mj2 doesn't let you have any more control over what any particular client
will do, but it does help in a couple of ways.  Firstly, it supports a few
methods of duplicate checking, so that there's a reasonable chance that
loops can be stopped before they become a problem.  Secondly, it gives you
a way to easily ban users (although, to be fair, you can do the same with
Mj1 using taboo_headers).  Thirdly, the presence of Reply-To: (along with
subject_prefix) is a choice that each list member can make.

 - J<



References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: RTFM problem? Perl problem? Mj2 problem?
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu>
Next: Re: RTFM problem? Perl problem? Mj2 problem?
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Development assistance offered (was Re: The future of majordomo)
From: SRE <eckert@climber.org>
Next: RTFM problem? Perl problem? Mj2 problem?
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk@QueerNet.ORG>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com