Easiest way to make inbound email address for forum/subforum?

[mattengland]

What's the easiest way to make an inbound email address for a forum/subforum?

The only option I see thus far is to create my own email list server and then use http://n2.nabble.com/more/MailingListRequest.jtp .  While I have managed a listservs (Mailman) previously, I'd like to avoid doing this if the only thing I want is an inbound email address ( [e-mail] ) to map to my Nabble forums.

I essentially want to do this: http://n2.nabble.com/help/Answer.jtp?id=46 ...without having an existing email list in the first place.  I'll provide the DNS, MX domain, and mailbox (which would presumably be a simple, direct forward from [e-mail] to [e-mail] ...or something like that) to handle the custom email address.  I just don't want to have a fire up a full-fledged email list server every time I want an email address for a new forum/subforum.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any help,
-Matt

[Will <Nabble>]

I think I understand what you want.

Nabble can be a fully functional mailing list but it works differently.

A conventional mailing list has a fixed email address, i.e. [e-mail]. Nabble doesn't have a fixed email address.

When you create a Nabble forum/mailing list, you have a web page, i.e. http://n2.nabble.com/public2-f1312204.html - if you want to access it as a mailing list, you click "Options->Subscribe to this forum", then you get an email address for this forum which is unique for you only.

So instead of a single public address, i.e. [e-mail], Nabble has a unique private address for each subscriber.

Does this make sense? Do you find it strange?

[mattengland]

(replying via web, for the email-based reply did not appear after 75+
minutes. Sorry for any double posting.)

At 10/9/2008 11:10 PM, Will <Nabble> wrote:
>Nabble can be a fully functional mailing list but it works
>differently.  A conventional mailing list has a fixed email address,
>i.e. [e-mail]. Nabble doesn't have a fixed email address.

It needs one if email-only users want to be able to start a new topic (via inbound emails).

To clarify, I propose to look at it this way:

I publicize a new discussion group (that servers both email and web forum for the same discussion content/topics/threads).  I want to "brand" 2 things:

1) The website link for the (sub)forum, eg: http://mydomain.tld/forums/discussion1
2) The email address for said (sub)forum, eg: [e-mail]

It doesn't seem to make sense to me to say to the email-only users:  "well, if you want to send [new] emails to the list, you have to go subscribe to the forum, then you get your own, private email address that allows you to post [new] topics to the forum."

(Maybe I'm missing something?)

Seems way to confusing for my users.  I just want to give them an email address.  And like I was saying before, I can provide said emailbox for said address, the domain name server, the MX domain, etc... ** I just don't want to have to make a full-fledged email list for each (sub)forum ** if I can avoid it.  Could I possibly spoof http://n2.nabble.com/more/MailingListRequest.jtp into thinking I have an email list when actually I don't, and I all I have is the above?

Now, if users never want to post new topics/start new email threads to an email list, this presumably an issue, for they can simply followup existing topics.  But emailers definitely will want to start new topics.

>Does this make sense? Do you find it strange?

The reply-address-for-each-topic-thread (if that's what you mean?) makes perfect sense to me.  An aside: I find it a great way to match replies with their appropriate topics, especially when different topics have same subjects, etc; 'References:' and the like email headers appear to break in this forum-to-email context for a variety of reasons.)

However, I still see an important need for a one, "public" email address.

fyi, I have yet to see anything where a (sub)forum subscriber gets their own email address for a (sub)forum; all I've seen thus far are email addresses specific to threads.  But this is a bit beside the point.

Thoughts?

[Will <Nabble>]

You understand the whole deal perfectly.

mattengland wrote

...
I publicize a new discussion group (that servers both email and web forum for the same discussion content/topics/threads).  I want to "brand" 2 things:

1) The website link for the (sub)forum, eg: http://mydomain.tld/forums/discussion1
2) The email address for said (sub)forum, eg: [e-mail]
...

(1) can be achieved easily with embedding. But (2) is difficult, it's basically trying to sugarcoat something to make it look like something else - I assume you are a engineer so you know this kind of thing is never good.

What if you just have (1), and don't even bother with (2)?

When I want to post to a mailing list, I always find the mailing list URL first, go there, find the instruction on how to subscribe,  subscribe to it, then compose an email, copy the mailing list address from the URL, send it out. Looking at this process, URL of the mailing list page is the key. Everything else follows.

Nabble fits into this process easily. Compare: you want to post to a mailing list, find the URL first, go there, subscribe to it, (may need to register to confirm your email address), get the mailing list address, compose an email to this address.

Having no single fixed public email address is actually a good way to prevent spams.

mattengland wrote

It doesn't seem to make sense to me to say to the email-only users:  "well, if you want to send [new] emails to the list, you have to go subscribe to the forum, then you get your own, private email address that allows you to post [new] topics to the forum."
...

With a normal mailing list, you can tell the user the email address up-front, but it's useless because they still have to subscribe to it before they can post to it. So, the difference is just showing the address before or after subscription.

In summary, I think you understand the Nabble way of doing mailing list. It is unconventional, and personally, I have the same concern as yous. I think the conventional mailing list people will find it strange.

But in the final analysis, I think the Nabble way is a better way, and I hope you agree with me.

The Nabble way allows you to subscribe at any level, all with the same consistent UI. You can subscribe at forum-level, sub-forum-level, or thread-level, or even post-level - so you only subscribe to what you are concerned with. What you suggested may sugarcoat the sub-forum level subscriptions to make it more mailing-list-like, but it breaks this consistency, thus making the subscription feature less powerful.

Make sense?

[mattengland]

Will <Nabble> wrote

What if you just have (1), and don't even bother with (2)?

Nabble only as a forum is great, but I want email integration as well, otherwise there are some communities that require it (email integration). Otherwise I have to go back to yahoogroups, phpbb-M2F, or the like.  Nabble with above (imo, proper ;) ) email integration works much better for me...if I can get it to work without that much work...and having to create an email list for every forum.  I'd do a Debian-Mailman thing--probably not that hard; but it could be easier.  ;)

Will <Nabble> wrote

Make sense?

In short, not really.  I could counter many of the above points, but it may not be worth debating at this point.  Nonetheless, I very much appreciate your taking the time to describe this stuff, Will.

For now, I'll just make a mailing list for every (sub)forum as I mention above.

And for the record: I'm not requesting to change Nabble's capability/behavior/interface for mailing lists.  I'm just looking for a way for me to interface with Nabble's email-list subscription without having to create a full email list (which for my cases would provide very little besides a fixed email address for inbound email).  I may try hacking around with stuff to see if I can get something to work and ask questions later.  Until then, suggestions welcome.