Mailman List Name


#1

Hi!

When I set up a discussion list with the name “Dog-Talk” (e.g.), the posting address ends up "Dog-Talk-mydomain.com@lists.mydomain.com" (i.e. the domain name is on both sides of the “@”).

I understand this has to do with virtual domain support, but I wonder:

Is there anyway to have a Mailman list at DH with a posting address like: "Dog-Talk@lists.mydomain.com", or will the domain name always show up on the left of the “@”?

–David B.
“greendavid”


#2

There isn’t currently a way to do this, although we’re working on it.
Note that you can easily setup ‘Dog-Talk@lists.example.com’ as a posting address for the list; in fact our setup should already give you the option to do this. However, the weird name will still show up as the “official” posting address.

I haven’t messed with the new virtual domain stuff yet, but the beta version of Mailman is way better than the current version. I suspect it will be a little while before we get the new version setup, working with our backend etc


#3

Me too, me too. I swear I was just this minute searching before asking that very same question. I get ‘convenience addresses’ galore but in the actual list messages the laundry list of headers always uses those extremely lumpy name-hyphen-domain@subdomain addresses.


#4

Ooops. Too slow posting :slight_smile:


#5

PS - people will also probably be happy to know that the rfc2369 headers can be hidden (or used) on a per-list basis in the new Mailman.

The new Mailman is also MIME aware, and can strip HTML, and MIME attachments of a particular type. The fact that it’s MIME aware means that attachments now show up properly in the archive instead of the ugly way they show up now.

Note that DH does have a “hidden” option (which can be enabled by support) to pipe messages through ‘demime’, which will remove HTML and binary attachments before posting messages.


#6

I look forward to the new version, which sounds like it might be a viable offering for my clients.

–David B.
“greendavid”


#7

Will - can you keep us posted on this? The Mailman lists are my only real gripe with DH currently. I have decided that for my purpose they are pretty much useless, so it would be nice to see this upgraded.

Zilch


#8

Yeah - there will be an announcement of some sort. As usual, though, we’re all busy with various projects, and obviously there will need to be some testing and re-coding done before we actually get this setup.

I’m still not 100% sure how easy it is going to be to get rid of the weird list-example.com@lists.example.com thingie.


#9

While we wait taps foot I’ve been experimenting with the current version. In the general config panel it won’t let me change the list name (Entered as ‘bog’ but rendered as ‘Bog’). I get this error msg:

real_name attribute not changed! It must differ from the list's name by case only.Um, to me that says BoG, BOG, and bog should all work.
FYI only. Don’t fix it … work on the new one instead :stuck_out_tongue:


#10

I’m having the same problem with Mail Man. I can’t change the list name case. Is a fix forthcoming, or is there a “right” way to change the case?

Thanks


#11

Hi,

I sent over an attachment (Word document) to a Mailman list and it shows up as junk. Should attachments show up as a link? How can this be corrected?

Thanks


#12

It will show up as binary in the archives, although most people’s mailers should show them properly.

The new version of Mailman is MIME aware, and this will work better.

Generally, it’s best not to send binary attachments to a mailing list, though.

We can have attachments and HTML automatically stripped before messages go out to your list; maybe this would help?


#13

Is that stripping an either/or option (html v. attachments)? Our list is a small (21) working list and we occasionally need attachments…Word documents typically. But if it’s possible to strip down to plain text those HTML messages, I’d definitely consider it.


#14

That option is an either / or option. In the new Mailman, the options are built into Mailman itself, and are much more configurable.

If feasible, putting up the files on a web site (or making them available via ftp) may be a better option.