Re: [Mailman-Users] List configuration options, available now or not?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:22:18 -0800 JC Dill <mailman@vo.cnchost.com> wrote:
On 11:05 AM 3/30/01, Ron Echeverri wrote:
- Does mailman have a configuration setting such that everyone who is subscribed to a list can post unmoderated, but email from a non-subscriber will be sent to a moderator for approval?
Yes. This is an option under privacy options.
You can also configure a list so that only a named set of addresses can post to the list, regardless of their subscription status.
To let some non-subscribers post without moderation (a practice that I personally feel has dubious value, since their question might be answered in a post to the list, perhaps in response to someone else asking the same question, but they won't see it because they aren't subscribed), how about implementing simple filter so that if a non-subscriber's post mentions one or more keywords, let it through to the list unmoderated, otherwise it goes to the moderator?
This is currently not possible under Mailman alone. It quite easy to do however via, say, a combo of procmail and mailman.
- Is [content filtering on the headers or body, to block messages that are in reply to an entire digest] possible with mailman?
Yes, within the minor limitations of regular expressions.
-- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ --=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
On 03:32 PM 3/30/01, J C Lawrence wrote:
- Is [content filtering on the headers or body, to block messages that are in reply to an entire digest] possible with mailman?
Yes, within the minor limitations of regular expressions.
So, in other words, it would be trivially easy for someone using mailman to configure their list to reject a post that said:
Mailman-Users digest, Volin the subject (a header), but not so easy to reject a post that said:
Send Mailman-Users mailing list submissions toin the body.
<rant> I'm just not sure. I mean, if it's that easy, why hasn't THIS LIST BEEN CONFIGURED TO DO JUST THAT????? </rant>
How do I know you aren't misleading me? If it's that easy, certainly this list would have been properly configured. I mean, letting a totally useless subject line stand in a post to be redistributed to the list is really letting your list membership down. IMHO, ever responsible list administrator MUST put in filters to ensure that posts that are submitted to their subscribers follow list rules, when filtering for such rules is an easy thing to do. A subject like "Subject: Mailman-Users digest, Vol 1 #1115 - 16 msgs" is clearly a violation of RFC 1855, if not also a violation of the list's specific rules.
It really should be an automatic feature of the mailing list software, whenever you add a digest. List owners shouldn't have to do anything to trigger this, and the default behavior should be to bounce the non-compliant post back to the author with an explanation about why it's being automatically rejected (just as bounced mail gets sent back with a reason when the MTA can't deliver it).
Bingo, no more problems with digest users forgetting their manners and sending entire digests back to the list, all using the useless (to the other list members) digest subject line.
On 04:53 AM 3/31/01, lcarter1@cwctv.net wrote:
no
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:25:05 -0500 mailman-users-request@python.org wrote: From: mailman-users-request@python.org Subject: Mailman-Users digest, Vol 1 #1115 - 16 msgs Reply-to: mailman-users@python.org X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.3 (101270) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary=63.102.49.29.506.16634.986041441.093.10336 To: mailman-users@python.org Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:25:05 -0500 Return-Path: mailman-users-admin@python.org
Send Mailman-Users mailing list submissions to mailman-users@python.org
<rant> I'm just not sure. I mean, if it's that easy, why hasn't THIS LIST BEEN CONFIGURED TO DO JUST THAT????? </rant>
How do I know you aren't misleading me? If it's that easy, certainly this list would have been properly configured.
Will you grow up, JC?
Is it possible that it's not so configured simply because the list admin is nowhere near as anal-retentive as you are?
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Dan Mick wrote:
<rant> I'm just not sure. I mean, if it's that easy, why hasn't THIS LIST BEEN CONFIGURED TO DO JUST THAT????? </rant>
How do I know you aren't misleading me? If it's that easy, certainly this list would have been properly configured.
Will you grow up, JC?
I also would like to suggest that perhaps JC installs Mailman and plays with it. He seems to be asking a lot of basic functionality questions that he could probably answer for himself by playing with the software (or even reading documentation).
alex
participants (4)
-
alex wetmore -
Dan Mick -
J C Lawrence -
JC Dill