[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       listar-support
Subject:    [Listar-support] Re: Listar vs. majordomo
From:       Peter Stieglecker <pst () radawana ! at>
Date:       1999-07-28 12:22:36
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 bahdb0yy@wahalla.worldonline.nl wrote:
> I would advise you to look at the headers of any mail you got from the
> mailinglist ;)

There are situations when you do not get any mail from a list (I guess
|VACATION| would be a typical example for listar, pseudo-lists are
an example for majordomo).


On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, JT wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Peter Stieglecker wrote:
> > 1. In majordomo, the "which" command takes a string which is used to
[...]
> See, I think that's a hack.   While I understand the 'usefulness' of it, 
> I would not really want to open that sort of security hole. (and yes, I do
> consider privacy of list members a security hole).n

Ok agreed, that's the reason why people can turn it on or off in majordomo
(which_access open;closed;list) and why it does not return more than a few
hits (max_which_hits configurable).

Browsing through my Logfiles I did not find any missuse of this feature
for the last few hundred usages. I guess members privacy is compromised
really through public accessible list archives which almost any list has
today. I would really vote for this feature. It would also help in the
migration from majordomo to listar btw.

Thanks for all the answers to my mail and your suggestions. 

pst

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]