[Mailman-Users] Sending a human message to the LISTNAME-request address.

[Dan Delaney]

Bill wrote:
> I like LISTSERV/ListProc model better, where there is a
> single address for the server, and all list addresses are really
> unique for that list.  But I don't know if we're in a position to

I like that approach as well. But some people like it the other way.
That's one of the nice things about majordomo, it goes both ways (so
to speak :-). If I have a majordomo list called "mylist", the
someone can subscribe one of two ways. They can send a message to
"majordomo at mydomain.com" with "subscribe myemail at anotherdomain.com"
in the message, or they can send a message to
"mylist-request at mydomain.com" with just "subscribe" in the message.
That's awefully nice. Mailman, however, limits the user to
the latter method, making "mailman at mydomain.com" go to the Mailman
administrator. I think it would make more sense to just stick with
"mailman-owner at mydomain.com", or even add
"mailman-admin at mydomain.com" and make "mailman at mydomain.com" an
address for sending commands to the user. If this is supposed to
replace majordomo, that's what a lot of majordomo users are used
to.
   As far as "mylist-request at mydomain.com" goes, I don't see a
problem with that list going to the server. I think "mylist-owner"
is meant for messages to a human. You are sending a "request" to the
server when sending to "mylist-request", and sending a message to
the owner of the list at "mylist-owner".

 --Dan
____________________________________________________________________________
 Daniel G. Delaney  *  Dionysos at Dionysia.org  *  www.Dionysia.org/~dionysos
 PGP Public Key: http://Dionysia.org/~dionysos/pgp5.html

     "Only two things are infinite: the universe and stupidity--
      and I'm not sure about the former."
                                          --Albert Einstein