[Mailman-Users] Feature request: Emergency Broadcast

[Gadi Evron]

Bill Catambay wrote:
> 1. Mailman aliases not working (like in my case)
> 2. Unable to access my email, but have access to web (which is common 
> for those of us behind corporate firewalls)
> 3. My email is broken, but my internet it still working
> 
> However, even with these reasons, I wouldn't consider it a big deal, 
> especially if it's difficult to implement.  After my list is working 
> again, I'll probably forget all about it.  :)

Yes, but are list admins always mailman admins or have access to the 
machine?

The only questions which seem relevant are:
1. Is this useful enough?
2. Does it fit with Mailman's vision?
3. How difficult is it to implement?




> 
> At 5:48 PM +0900 on 11/23/09, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> 
> 
>> Gadi Evron writes:
>>
>>  > crappy providers aside, do you think this might be a useful
>>  > feature?
>>
>> I think that, as Mark alludes to, this feature would be harder to
>> implement usefully than you'd think.  It sounds easy, but remember, in
>> a very large share cases where it would be useful *your mail system is
>> already broken*.  A trivial example: most of the cases where I've
>> wanted something like it, the host was crashed, and simply not
>> available.  In other cases, it seems that Mailman is for some reason
>> unable to send mail; why would it be more able to send mail received
>> via HTTP than mail received by SMTP?
> 
> 


-- 
Gadi Evron,
ge at linuxbox.org.

Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/