[Mailman-Developers] Can we remove nimda.txt ?

[Brad Knowles]

At 9:07 PM -0400 2004-10-17, Barry Warsaw wrote:

>  As to 5.8 and 4.42, I do consider the fact that Mailman 2.1.5 breaks
>  under older Python's a bug that should be fixed in 2.1.6 (and was fixed
>  in CVS very early on).  Mailman 2.1.x should still run under Python
>  2.1.  I do however /recommend/ using Python 2.3.

	Fair enough.  We can update the FAQ Wizard entry when 2.1.6 ships.

>  As for 5.12, I think it's an oversight on my part that the bounce probe
>  feature requires VERP support in the MTA.  I would like to see the probe
>  become optional in 2.1.6 so that if you do not have VERP, Mailman will
>  process bounces in the 2.1.4 way (i.e. not send a probe).  I don't know
>  if that's feasible or even desirable -- how much pain is it for
>  mailman-users that VERP is required?  From 5.12, it sounds like those
>  using Mailman in some hosting arrangements are prevented from upgrading
>  because of this.  That's unfortunate.

	I don't know how much work it would require to make this turned 
on by default, but to allow fallback behaviour if not supported.  The 
alternative is to revert to the older behaviour and turn off the VERP 
features by default.  I'm not fond of that alternative, but it may be 
better for the broader Mailman community, especially those at hosting 
sites where more modern MTA features may not be available.

>  /Should/ we require VERP?  My preference would be "no".

	If that's the direction you prefer, that's fine.  My point is 
that we should align all our features, and if we're going to require 
VERP in one area, we might as well make use of it in another, 
especially if doing so will help to reduce a very common complaint.

>  Can you provide more detail about those complaints?  What don't people
>  like about it?  The only difference between "personalized" messages and
>  "fully personalized" messages is the To header, so if they don't like
>  that, you shouldn't fully personalize the messages.

	The munging of the To: and Cc: headers, throwing away all 
previous information that was there, etc... has been the major 
complaint that has been voiced to me.  My understanding is that some 
of the template/personalization features are not enabled unless you 
turn on "full personalization", and if that's the case, we need a 
fourth alternative.

	If I'm wrong, then we might want to be more clear in our 
documentation, so that people do not needlessly turn on full 
personalization when they don't have to do so in order to get the 
features they're looking for.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

   SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.