On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 16:08, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> This allows you to make mailman-owner a list.
> Without the split, it fails miserably.
And actually thats going to be a config that many (larger) sites will
want to do - the alternative is that they have to alias it.
> > On reflection, I realize this is only a problem if you *also* have a
> > list named 'foo' -- and that combination is just doomed to fail with
> > *any* MTA configuration. One router (director) it is.
>
> No, that's not correct. If you have any list called foo-owner, this
> router will strip -owner, and look for a list foo. It won't find one and
> then say that foo-owner is not a valid recipient and bounce the mail.
The suffix stripping mechanism isn't really up to backup and retry (ie
RE type parsing). Would be nice to have a
local_part_suffix_might_be_optional flag :-)
It does seem a shame to have a complete additional router for this
special case - and it brings its own problems - like sorting out the
clashes between the parts of listname and listname-owner (if they were
both defined as lists).
My feeling is document the problem and leave the routers as they are....
I'd personally also add a big warning to the Mailman newlist code if you
attempt to define a list with a used extension and head the problem off
there....
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
