Phil, (01)
Thank you for the input. (02)
I just went to the "approval pending" page for [nls-archive], but
you've already dealt with that message (and its not there any
more) ... and therefore, I cannot investigate further by taking a
look at the message. (03)
When messages are distributed to me, my mail client shows the
header as something like: (04)
//
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:35:49 -0800
From: Jonathan Cheyer <jonathan@cheyer.biz>
To: Philip Gust <gust@NouveauSystems.com>
Subject: Re: [nls-technical] Keyset mappings
Sender: nls-technical-bounces@chm.cim3.net
Reply-To: NLS Restoration Technical Discussion
<nls-technical@chm.cim3.net>
// (05)
However, (now that you're bringing it up), I remember having seen
others who have mail clients showing the header as (using the
above example) something like: (06)
//
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:35:49 -0800
From: <nls-technical-bounces@chm.cim3.net> on behalf of Jonathan
Cheyer <jonathan@cheyer.biz>
To: Philip Gust <gust@NouveauSystems.com>
Subject: Re: [nls-technical] Keyset mappings
Reply-To: NLS Restoration Technical Discussion
<nls-technical@chm.cim3.net>
// (07)
... maybe this is why it is not automatically accepting the
message (assuming my messages did get archived without your
intervention). (08)
Accordingly, I have just added the following 3 addresses to the
"auto-accept" filter: (09)
//
nls-restore-bounces@chm.cim3.net
nls-technical-bounces@chm.cim3.net
nls-legal-bounces@chm.cim3.net
// (010)
... let's see if that helps fix the problem. (011)
Regards. =ppy
-- (012)
Philip Gust wrote Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:25:16 -0800:
> Peter,
>
> The problem is definitely related to CC-ing nls-technical or nls-legal.
> Jonathan just sent a note to the Verizon legal group and CCd nls-legal.
> There is an approval request pending for his message in nls-archive that
> I'm just getting ready to take care of. I believe that this is a bug in
> the cim3 software or our in configuration that you'll want to address,
> since it is a very useful pattern that other groups could benefit from. (013)
> At 03:08 PM 2/27/2006, you wrote:
>> Phil,
>>
>> > "Blind carbon copies or other implicit destinations are
>> > not allowed.
>>
>> I am aware that that is disallowed (probably for good reasons). We
>> need to work within that constraint -- i.e. use "c.c." and not
>> "b.c.c." for the purpose. Or, if "b.c.c." needs to be used, go on and
>> approve the post right away.
>>
>> > Somehow, the system turns what is sent to the nls-archive
>> > list into a BCC or other implicit destination.
>>
>> I don't think that is the case ... my last message to you got into
>> [nls-archive] properly (I think), without administrator intervention.
>> Let's look at this one again, and see what happens. -- try NOT to
>> approve this, even if you got asked to, but let's follow-up (maybe
>> even via the phone) on it quickly.
>>
>> I'm including Jonathan in the conversation ... he probably knows more
>> than I do.
>>
>> Regards. =ppy
>> -- (014)
>> PhilipGust wrote Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:41:37 -0800:
>>> The details page states the reason as:
>>> "Blind carbon copies or other implicit destinations are not allowed.
>>> Try reposting your message by explicitly including the list address
>>> in the To: or Cc: fields.". We often CC the nls-technical or
>>> nls-legal list, for example. Somehow, the system turns what is sent
>>> to the nls-archive list into a BCC or other implicit destination.
>>> Could you check on how this is being done to see if that's the case? (015)
>>> At 08:57 AM 2/27/2006, you wrote:
>>>> Phil,
>>>>
>>>> Can you tell (from the admin message) "why" you would need to
>>>> approve them?
>>>>
>>>> The [nls-archive] list should be configured with "the union of all
>>>> other list-memberships" (i.e. everyone from nls-restore,
>>>> nls-technical, and nls-legal ... etc.) being treated as "auto
>>>> accept" for posting. That configuration option can be found on the
>>>> page: http://chm.cim3.net/mailman/admin/nls-archive/privacy/sender
>>>>
>>>> When I started the list, I've already done that ... but if you are
>>>> adding new subscribers to anyone of the other lists, this
>>>> "auto-accept" lists needs to be similarly expanded. (see:
>>>> http://chm.cim3.net/forum/nls-archive/2005-11/msg00001.html#nid07)
>>>> Maybe, this is what's causing the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if this message gets archived ... if it doesn't
>>>> (automatically), then maybe the issue is caused by something else.
>>>> Please check and advise.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers. =ppy
>>>> -- (016)
>>>> Philip Gust wrote Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:36:39 -0800:
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>> I find that I'm having to approve every entry into the nls-archive
>>>>> list. Is there some way to set it so that items from the
>>>>> nls-restore, nls-technical, and nls-legal go into the archive
>>>>> without requiring approval of every one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Philip Gust
>>>>> Nouveau Systems, Inc.
>>>>> phone: +1 650 961-7992
>>>>> fax: +1 520 843-7217
>>>>>
>>>>> mailto: gust@NouveauSystems.com (017)
|