 | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Matthew Miller
|
| | | (...) After thinking for a bit, I think I would feel okay about this if you could conspire with the list owner to explain all of this in the info-message for the list. I just don't want people to be surprised by it. (26 years ago, 26-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Hmm, this problem must come up all the time with mailing list technology and the abundance of list exploders. I wonder how this scenario differs from the reverse situation, where a mailing list would have to reject posts coming from people (...) (26 years ago, 26-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Very true. That's why conspiring together is the best way. :) [much snipped] (...) Yes, that's certainly much messier than I'd thought initially. Ug. (26 years ago, 26-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) But you can't just go trading people's e-mail addresses without their permission. :-( (...) I've got it solved on my end, but I don't know how traditional mailing list servers are set up. Surely this has come up at least a zillion times before (...) (26 years ago, 26-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) True. But an arrangement like this wouldn't be trading e-mail addresses as such -- it'd be more of an expanding of both services. (26 years ago, 26-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Hmm, so if there were a checkbox saying "give my e-mail address to lego- related mailing list servers so that my messages posted here can be allowed to show up there as well," would that suffice? Say, do mailing list servers allow people to be (...) (26 years ago, 26-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) Majordomo can be set up this way. By definition, any decent list server must be as good as Majordomo. Huh. You're proposing that people who want to read/post on LUGnet but not via e-mail would be set up as able to post, but not actually be on (...) (26 years ago, 26-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) That's the way it works, yes. Say there is some discussion group (newsgroup) called lugnet.foo. Then all messages arriving into lugnet.foo are echoed out to an e-mail distribution list (person-by-person, group-by-group voluntary (...) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Okie dokie, here's my solution. Let's take your message (which I'm replying to) as an example. Instead of gatewaying your message out as: Subject: Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail From: mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) (...) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lugnet.* discussion groups by mail —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Well, that has no immediately apparent flaws at least. :) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
