On 3/9/11 11:07 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Can mailman integrate with spamassassin? if it can why not route the
lists through a spamassassin? My reasoning for this is that we will
eliminate list moderation and free up moderators for other things.
Mailman has not been chosen mainly out of two reasons:
1. Moderation via e-mail is not comfortable. It especially requires
one password shared among all moderators, which is inconvenient.
2. Although virtual domains are supported, the list name can only
exist once per Mailman installation. That means,
email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org could not
exist. It rather would have to be email@example.com and
firstname.lastname@example.org. In addition, managing virtual domain
names is a bit more complicated in Mailman compared to mlmmj.
I agree that Mailman provides a lot of other great features that would
come in handy and would have saved us a lot of time, but the above two
limitations are real tough to deal with.
I also agree that mlmmj has some drawbacks, but basically, it does it
job very well. To my understanding, many complaints would have either
occured with other lists as well -- like some people want attachments,
others don't, the next ones love forums, others don't -- and other
things are not bugs in mlmmj itself. For some configurations, Google
Mail seems to omit the "+" in the addresses, however, the + is
supported by RFC, so it's clearly a bug at Google that affects us.
Other people complained about not being able to receive e-mail -- most
of the time, it has been a few French providers blocking the mails
without any reason, and, again, in violation of the RFC, not even
answering to e-mails when the postmaster is mailed. Features like
"mark moderated messages" are really desirable, but they are not
supported by any other mailing list system, IIRC, so we would have to
implement that ourselves anyways.
And, what I also see, people simply cannot read. They send email to
the help alias, but do not understand what to do. That would have
occured with Mailman as well, and I guess people would have even be
more confused by the web interface and the password they need.
There are a few drawbacks that will be solved with a newer mlmmj
release we plan to roll out soon, like the cut-off moderation messages.
We also plan to provide an administrative interface, where list owners
can edit some settings and (un)subscribe people. I agree that a lack
of this is really ugly. However, it needs time and resources, so if
anyone volunteers to code, let us know. :-)
NoOp wrote on 2011-03-09 04.05:
1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks
would have learned from the OOo list history.
This is an endless discussion. Ask five people what they prefer, and
you get seven replies. I am fine with both, but IMHO, the majority of
list moderators wanted unsubscribed posts to be possible.
2. Why are multiple moderators necessary? If it's to get some poor soul
to sort& reject spam, then there are automated tools to do that
Most spam is filtered out already. There are not multiple moderators
necessary, it's just convenient. Technically, one is enough.
3. Why are we getting posts on the user& other lists using
Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful:
that the user can't unsubscribe, or can't set nomail?
Might be related to the Google problem. In addition, Google archives
one's own e-mails without putting them into the inbox first, which
confuses some more poeple.
4. Why is it necesary to send an email for unsubscribe instructions?
That's indeed a limitation for mlmmj -- unsubscription for the digest
version of the lists are different than to those for the non-digest. I
see no reason for a digest, but lots of users demanded it, so enabled
it. It usually leads to broken threads, but then, you can't make
everyone happy... :-)
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
etc at all? Hello... is this some type of secret handshake that takes
place to get off of the users list?
No. But send an e-mail and *READ*. It's explained in clear words, I
What seems to be the problem with simply posting the unsubscribe
information on the website and at the bottom of each post? Such as:
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to
That does not work for digests. I received a lot of mails from digest
users unable to unsubscribe.
So why the requirement to send and ask for help? Is it because Mlmmj —
Mailing List Management Made Joyful may not be so resilient/secure
overall? Does the<listname>+firstname.lastname@example.org not work
It does, but not for digests. Indeed, this *is* a serious drawback
that annoys me, but then, I don't have the resources nor the knowledge
to fix it. :/
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy