Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 03/09/2011 02:07 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:

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, 
and could not exist. It rather would have to 
be and In 
addition, managing virtual domain names is a bit more complicated in 
Mailman compared to mlmmj.

No idea & no real preference other than the ablity for the user to login
and modify their profile settings & subscribe/unsubscribe. That said I
find it hard to believe that you couldn't have mailman accounts for each
list. Ubuntu have many:

all of which are mailmain based. Sample:

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.

Then my recommendation is to find something else, as the inability of
the user to manager their list settings is a problem.

I also agree that mlmmj has some drawbacks, but basically, it does it 
job very well. 

It doesn't if it doesn't allow the user to modify their mail list
preferences & settings, and/or unsubscribe/subscribe without jumping
through hoops.

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. 

None of my comments regard attachments & I think that you are being a
bit obtuse & silly here.

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 

And that is relevent to my questions how?

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.

Perhaps it is because by the time the reach point of unsubscribing to
the list(s) that they don't want to read? Don't know, but if the
unsubscribe/subscribe information were posted on the website mail list
area maybe they could instead be referred to that instead of some
special email?

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.

How about tagging moderated messages so that subscribed users know that
the post is from a unsubscribed poster and has been forwarded by a
moderator? It's rather simple: just as a [Moderated] tag to the subject
of the message.

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.

Then if the mandate is to allow unsubscribed posts, *please* identify
the post as such with a [Moderated] tag in the subject. As you may/or
may not have witnessed on the OOo list over the past 5 years or so, this
issue has been a subject of contention that raises it's ugly head at
least once a month. The general consensus was to allow unsubscribed
posters; the key problem was/is that there was/is no easy way to know if
the post came from such. So folks send off a reply only to be told later
that the time they took to respond fell on deaf ears because the OP was
from someone not subscribed to the list. They then have to decide
whether they wish to reforward their response to the Unsub, or just move on.

Note: it seems that I've fallen into this category on the OOo list;
after 5 years of posts, I'm suddenly no longer subscribed, nor can I
comment on OOo bug reports any longer unless I create a new
username/password... but that's another story that doesn't apply to this

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 instead.

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.

Why is Google even an issue, or brought up? I don't understand the
comment. I see users on the user list that have no relation to gmail or
Google. So something else must be broken in the process.

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... :-)

Is it a limitation for mlmmj, or can the instructions that are received
in the email be posted on the website?

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
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 
guess. :-)

I don't dare. Can you post the instructions/response here?

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> not work
any longer?

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. :/

Nor do I. But obviouly someone with mlmmj experience helped to
decide/setup the list(s). Can we get them to assist?


Note to Christian Lohmaier regarding your comments in this thread:
I fail to understand why you enjoy calling people "stupid" and "ignorant".
I see that you made one post on the OOo user list back in 2005:
Subject: Re: Ergebnis der DE Co-Lead Wahl
(and of course I know about your posts on the OOo releases list),
so it is apparent that you've never spent time nor participated on the
OOo user list. Your comment(s) are both offensive and display ignorance
of the issues.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.