At 10:49 AM -0500 3/9/01, Tom Mahoney is rumored to have typed:
> If I should have sent to the list...I shall.
And, I note, forwarded to the list a message sent by me to you PRIVATELY
without my permission. Perhaps you should spend more time learning proper
netiquette, and less time b*tching about SmartList. Forwarding mail sent
PRIVATELY to a PUBLIC mailing list without the permission of the author is
about as low as you can get...which is exactly why I _didn't_ reply to you
on-list, but rather privately, suggesting you should have sent your message
to the list instead of to me since my views on this issue should be
well-known to you from my previous responses. Note I had the decency NOT to
send your posting to the list without your permission - something you need to
learn immediately before you post to _any_ mailing list on the net. (This
improper behavior is grounds for immediate explusion on the mailing lists _I_
operate. I would have expected more from someone at F&M...they appear to have
considerably lowered their standards in CS.)
As to the rest...there's no point to my wasting the time responding.
Knock yourself out having the last word...I won't bother replying to you
again.
Charlie (who apologizes to the list for this unseemly exchange)
I may be blind but I can't find anywhere in the docs, faq or list
archives that explain how to setup smartlist to send a confirmation
before it will subscribe someone to a list. Can someone please help?
Chris
If I should have sent to the list...I shall.
Drop the attitude with me, Charlie. I said at the very top of my
message that it was not a complaint, just an observation. And I also
said that I have no idea whether SL is right or wrong. But maybe,
just maybe, if SL is the only one doing it the way it does, there's
an issue, I have no idea.
I'll be the first to admit that the likes of Topica and Yahoo are
non-standard and impossible to deal with, but out of curiosity - what
committee of all that's right with mail lists decreed that SL is
perfect? And how do you presume to know all of the mail programs
that I receive mail from?
I'm not guru enough like you to edit my shell script - I'm not sure
even sure I know what it is. I'm a network guy, OK. SL's doing what
I want it to now, no thanks to anyone on this list. I asked some
questions and got nothing but flak and answers I didn't understand.
I used trial and error - a great learning tool.
Tom
***
What I typed to Charlie:
I got myself in trouble here last time I asked about this whole
subject, so let me just throw a quick comment in here - not a
complaint, just an observation.
I belong to quite a few lists, almost all on digest. SmartList is
the only one that I know of that does whatever it does to digests.
Yes, I have Eudora configured to NOT receive as attachments and the
digests DO display correctly for me. Having said that, I should
point out that my SmartList is the ONLY list for which this has been
necessary.
Whether this means SmartList is the only one doing it right or the
only one doing it wrong, I couldn't say. My only comment is that it
is the only one I've come in contact with that does what it does to
digests.
*** Which prompted him to retort:
>At 9:48 AM -0500 3/9/01, Tom Mahoney is rumored to have typed:
>
>> I belong to quite a few lists, almost all on digest. SmartList is
>> the only one that I know of that does whatever it does to digests.
>
> First, I think you _really_ wanted to send this to the list, since sending
>it only to me doesn't make much sense...you should be aware of my strong
>opinions on this subject by now.
>
> Secondly, if SmartList is the only one that "does what it does," that says
>a whole lot more negatively about the other lists you are on than it does
>SmartList.
>
> Look, if you want to follow Topica, YahooGroups, and the other
>non-standard outfits, simply edit your digest shell script. Or use another
>mailing list package, like majordomo or mailman, and change _those_ to taste.
>Or solve all your problems and _use_ the freebies like Topica or YahooGroups,
>which allege to give you mind-numbingly simple administrative controls and
>pander to the lowest-common-denominator mail clients like the completely
>broken AOL 6.x client. Personally, I'd rather do things the right way than
>follow those who are non-standard. You are welcomed to do whatever you want,
>of course...except, perhaps, complain about SmartList mazking every attempt
>to follow the rules.
>
> Charlie
Morning, folks...
(*sigh*) I'm catching grief for the multipart/digest MIME type again,
apparently from someone with Outlook 2000 who either doesn't know how to
configure it, or doesn't know it's damaged in not allowing him to see the
messages the way he wants.
Anyway, I removed this guy from the digest version of the list he was
complaining about, which solves my problem with this guy, but I need a little
supporting ammunition for the future when this happens again and someone ELSE
whines that I should be sending the digested version of the list in plain
text.
Can anyone point me to an RFC or document that defines the
multipart/digest MIME type (I did a search, but can't seem to find any)? Does
anyone have instructions for the various Microsoft packages (the problem
children are almost universally using OE or Outlook, since apparently the
others, like the Eudora I use, have no problem setting a little checkbox to
receive MIME digests as attachments, or not) to have them not explode a
digest? Any advice on information I should put in a form letter when I get
these annoying complaints from users?
Yeah, I'm a little tired and cranky, and so apologize for the tone, and
would appreciate any list-admin advice on how to deal with these folks, who
can be even more self-assuredly obnoxious than those who want me to munge my
Reply-To. ;)
Charlie
Heh heh heh.. :)
I don't mind being contradicted at all, and I *certainly* don't know
anywhere near all there is to know about SL. I hope you don't mind my
echoing your privately-sent helpful remarks onto the list, in case it
helps with the case at hand...
It looks like the manual could be slightly clearer on this point...
Anyhow, I've updated the faq to include your clue. :)
http://www.hartzler.net/smartlist/SmartList-FAQ.html#Section_8.1
I appreciate the feedback!
Thanks,
Pete.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Munday, Merrick wrote:
> > The relevant section in the manual is 3f. It makes no mention of
> > passwords...
>
> Well, you're the FAQ moderator, so I don't want to contradict you in public,
> but in the rc.custom file there is a place for a moderators' password. If
> set, the password must be placed after the moderators' email address in the
> approved header. However, AFAIK there must be a space, not an underscore,
> separating the email from the password.
>
> Merrick Munday
>
> As you're using Outlook, you may need to look into setting up
> the list to allow the top line(s) of the message body to be treated by
> SmartList as headers for purposes of commands...
There's a bigger issue with Outlook, which is that Outlook defaults to
wrapping after 80 characters, and smartlist won't see the remainder of the
approved: or x-command: header if it's wrapped. We would commonly exceed 80
characters with a subscribe request, whereupon Outlook would wrap the last
"word" which is the whole email address. You'll then get a "X-Diagnostic:
Missing argument for subscribe" header in the returned mail to the
maintainer's box. Further, the corporate/workgroup (CW) configuration of
Outlook does not allow configuration of the number of characters to wrap at.
The simple solution for us was to use Outlook Express which is already there
on the machines and allows configuration of a 132 character wrap limit.
I guess the application to this problem is that if your maintainer's email
address or the password is extrordinarily long, you won't be able to send
approvals from Outlook.
> approved: moderatorsEmail(a)service.net_password
As far as I know, there should be a space, not an underscore, between the
moderator's email address and the password. Anyone have a different view?
Merrick Munday
I've had a moderated list running for some time, although I was not the
moderator. It seem that I have forgotten how to approve the messages and the
past moderator is gone. I can't seem to find the text in the manual.
I believe the text for approval, with a password is as follows:
approved: moderatorsEmail(a)service.net_password
I have been trying to approve messages with the above text as well as several
permutations, from an Email address which is included in the moderators file,
but can't seem to get them out to the list. I've confirmed the password with
what is in the rc.custom file. Might someone be able to let me know what I am
doing wrong?
Thank you and best regards,
Jack
