On Mon, 15 May 2006, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 10:01 AM +0100 2006-05-15, David Lee wrote:
Is there a facility, orplans for such, for each permitted sender to have (optionally) their own password, useable across many lists?
This is a very good question. I'm glad you brought it to this list.
I'm pretty sure that there is no facility in Mailman today to achieve what you're looking for. I see no problem with the concept, but I will let others answer the technical issues of how it might be done, etc....
Glad it seems reasonable. Thanks.
If you haven't done so already, I would encourage you to file this as a Request For Enhancement on the Mailman SourceForge page at <http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=103&atid=350103>.
Thanks. Done.
I'm not convinced that having per-user approval passwords would help the moderators act in a more consistent manner, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.
Hm? The idea is that the genuine sender should be able to avoid moderation in the first place.
As an aside, is there a way to do "Approved:" as a header (rather than as first line of message-body) if the client is Outlook? OWA?
What are the drawbacks (those that would havesignificantly worse problems/weaknesses than existing mechanisms)?
About the only thing I can think of that might be an issue would be that there would now be more data to manage, and of course the problem of feeping creaturism.
Thanks. Being new to Mailman (although with (too) many years' worth of Majordomo behind me) I wanted to do a basic sanity-check of the idea itself.
If not yet possible, but acceptable in theory (perhaps with amendments), then we would hope to consider volunteering some effort into coding it.
If you code such a feature (or have it done for you), and then upload that to the Mailman patch page on SourceForge at <http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=103&atid=300103>, you would be much more likely to get this feature incorporated into a future version of Mailman.
Thanks.
The big question is: which version should we base it on? We would be looking to put into into local production (assuming we did it) fairly soon, but also be looking to get it incorporated into future versions. So Mm 2.1.x? 2.2.x? How different are those two versions? (I'm assuming not 3.x because that seems to be some way off yet.)
Thanks again.
--
: David Lee I.T. Service : : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : Durham University : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road : : Durham DH1 3LE : : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. :