From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Schmidt Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:21:44 +0000 Subject: Re: [mlmmj] Special version of list where post doesn't get sent back Message-Id: <4D76C818.60508@yahoo.com.au> List-Id: References: <20110308154817.GB4806@barfooze.de> In-Reply-To: <20110308154817.GB4806@barfooze.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: mlmmj@mlmmj.org > having a special version of a list where the post doesn't get sent back to the > sender would be nice, as not everyone likes getting their mails twice. However, > some people (like me) like it (because it's easier to detect what's going on > and if the post was accepted, rejected or what else might have happened, also > because you can look at the headers for information), so it would be nice to > have this as a special version of the list instead of a global list option. > Someone complained about this to me today, and I guess he had a valid point. > I guess it isn't easy to find a good balance between lightweight and bloated, > but as long as the MLM isn't controlled mainly through a web interface and > starts sending monthly password reminders, everything should be okay. A 'global option' implementation of this is in version control (it was one of my priorities when choosing an MLM, and since Mlmmj ticked most other boxes, I chose to use Mlmmj and implement that feature myself). It will be in 1.2.18 when it finally gets out, hopefully soon.... I use it in production and it seems to work fine. I agree, it's a personal preference thing, though, so it would be good for users to be able to choose for themselves whether they want this. I get around it by subscribing to the list with a different email to that which I post from, since I'm pretty much the only person on the list who likes to see the echoes. A special version of the list is an interesting thought. That might be a way to quickly offer that functionality before we get more per-user options/data supported. Though perhaps it's better to wait for more per-user options to do this, which is what I was intending. Ben.