To restrict sending email messages per day
Hello everybody, I am an owner of a list using Mailman. We have more than 200 active senders in a 2000-member list. We need a setup tool to restrict 2 messages per day for every user. Is it available such a setup in Mailman? Does anyone have any experience like this? Thank you in advance? Nezih Yasar
Nezih Yasar writes:
Hello everybody, I am an owner of a list using Mailman. We have more than 200 active senders in a 2000-member list. We need a setup tool to restrict 2 messages per day for every user. Is it available such a setup in Mailman?
No.
Does anyone have any experience like this?
Such restrictions are typically neither fair nor effective. It is quite difficult to prevent a determined and mildly skilled user from posting without moderation, but your list must be receiving about 500 posts per day. So moderation doesn't sound like a very attractive alternative. But if you don't have moderation, the determined and skilled will be able to post freely, while others are effectively suppressed.
Perhaps it would be possible to set up additional lists and split the traffic?
If that doesn't appeal to you, we need to know more about your requirements.
Thank you Stephen, We have enough additional lists sharing the traffic but this is an alumni list without moderation. It has a central role. Each alumni has a right to affiliate the list. Our members agree on two-mail-per-day restriction convinced that it disciplines writing to this central list. So this is a rule in our procedural document which is like a regulatory framework. But really a few members do not obey this rule deliberately. Condemnations had no effect on them. This is the reason we need such a technical way to obey the rule. Our members can tolerate two mails per day from these people, but most of members are very uneasy because of the excessive mail annoyance of them. Naturally this has caused some drops in memberships. This our problem, an embedded rule may ease our pain. But we can manage it as in last fifteen years countenancing dropped memberships continues... I am not sure whether this situation requires such a tool, some of our members demand it. I am really sorry for that weepy and long explanations :( Thanks a lot. Nezih Yasar
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org>wrote:
Nezih Yasar writes:
Hello everybody, I am an owner of a list using Mailman. We have more than 200 active senders in a 2000-member list. We need a setup tool to restrict 2 messages per day for every user. Is it available such a setup in Mailman?
No.
Does anyone have any experience like this?
Such restrictions are typically neither fair nor effective. It is quite difficult to prevent a determined and mildly skilled user from posting without moderation, but your list must be receiving about 500 posts per day. So moderation doesn't sound like a very attractive alternative. But if you don't have moderation, the determined and skilled will be able to post freely, while others are effectively suppressed.
Perhaps it would be possible to set up additional lists and split the traffic?
If that doesn't appeal to you, we need to know more about your requirements.
On 7/15/13 4:03 PM, Nezih Yasar wrote:
Thank you Stephen, We have enough additional lists sharing the traffic but this is an alumni list without moderation. It has a central role. Each alumni has a right to affiliate the list. Our members agree on two-mail-per-day restriction convinced that it disciplines writing to this central list. So this is a rule in our procedural document which is like a regulatory framework. But really a few members do not obey this rule deliberately. Condemnations had no effect on them. This is the reason we need such a technical way to obey the rule. Our members can tolerate two mails per day from these people, but most of members are very uneasy because of the excessive mail annoyance of them. Naturally this has caused some drops in memberships. This our problem, an embedded rule may ease our pain. But we can manage it as in last fifteen years countenancing dropped memberships continues... I am not sure whether this situation requires such a tool, some of our members demand it. I am really sorry for that weepy and long explanations :( Thanks a lot. Nezih Yasar
One simple solution is once you detect the violator, put them on moderation and actively limit their posting.
-- Richard Damon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/15/2013 04:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/13 4:03 PM, Nezih Yasar wrote:
<snip>
Our members agree on two-mail-per-day restriction convinced that it disciplines writing to this central list. So this is a rule in our procedural document which is like a regulatory framework. But really a few members do not obey this rule deliberately. Condemnations had no effect on them.
<snip>
One simple solution is once you detect the violator, put them on moderation and actively limit their posting.
Agreed. You have tried socially shaming them, so they have been warned. I would just approve the first two for each violator that I saw per day and explicitly reject the rest.
David Benfell / benfell@parts-unknown.org Please see https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 for GnuPG information (or the attachment you don't understand) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR5I9GAAoJELJhbl/uPb4SBfwP/jlEZJX4i7zIMSxjM/SrADsK PNauGhmHvARUgRdSQWVF+YBmB6isZ73UqUQ07gg2NYH5F3k7ozxRZKepc8c6iCAj v0+5TiY/d1rG9hj1ahYXSiB4VL06sHYPU431MsqPZn66T0lDBzseVBecFxprECv6 6Dl2Nrf+a3Qh5T00NQIlIqN0lgmMbAol4N01eMfuac2EOE0ITFWqmzg1AKZwF8pC hJiiim4Lw3K1kzE8mWli7YQUXaO+noDxp8C6zTWoA3Sx6HFAHsmL4SYLEdHG3JlA yWkxuF+wICEZ0Akq0zNR29oaqtFW8tXVcsffmbzSfW90UCZ6E5nJL7g+gPYg2r0a +3e0B2dZnkQh9QgRaa+1wprzZ4hFrrROsd9XmANvfVkquXQXpVTn7YjROR9vn2+z Q50O4+SPDDM4TgR87sd58y0BxF86OXrjt1dVj2wPvFJTfU7KzOGUOTMBoNXPwIHt DM+vf/trRfw82O72OtLtoV4TNAtxv3Y+d4LuOZIvJBliTwjjL74RmX/CSgYKR0yg WDJSSnaZb3TVV4ZrRjorm5YTAnQPBoFT5EC8iQACWbpnYfQOZ+NPMOGzWH/OLPb3 2d6o/xJvAI1++uGkbpI3v0Jrm0t8Kr6jcw5JVmB5WoYI4cENEj1u11E8s4Ac9MVC bmDS33AMnYYMGOnSn4Jp =1XsV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Richard Damon writes:
On 7/15/13 4:03 PM, Nezih Yasar wrote:
We have enough additional lists sharing the traffic but this is an alumni list without moderation. It has a central role. Each alumni has a right to affiliate the list.
OK. I still suspect that starting a new list for active discussants would be useful as part of a strategy to deal with this, but it has its disadvantages.
Our members agree on two-mail-per-day restriction convinced that it disciplines writing to this central list. So this is a rule in our procedural document which is like a regulatory framework.
OK. It's really important that you have the backing of the membership, in my experience. Most people like having a strong list owner who enforces such rules that are generally and publicly agreed, but if it looks like you're making up a new rule, people you really want on your side will fear you are setting up as censor. (Even if it's a very objective rule like "2 per day".)
I am not sure whether this situation requires such a tool, some of our members demand it.
One simple solution is once you detect the violator, put them on moderation and actively limit their posting.
I agree with Richard, this is the quick and simple solution. You probably should discuss it with the community before implementing it, though.
It has a number of social advantages. The offenders (against the community custom) are punished, and feel an appropriate amount of pain. The pain can be calibrated (by the frequency of moderation, once a day, once every other day, etc, and by the length of time the member is place on moderation).
I'll think about writing a "PosterThrottle" handler to implement your requirements, but it will take a week or two.
Steve
On 07/15/2013 08:18 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I'll think about writing a "PosterThrottle" handler to implement your requirements, but it will take a week or two.
Today was a slow day ;)
See <http://www.msapiro.net/scripts/PostLimit.py> (mirrored at <http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~msapiro/scripts/PostLimit.py>)for a script that limits the number of posts from a member to a list either per calendar day or a configurable period of hours.
It could be made lots fancier with the limit and time period being list attributes or mm_cfg variables instead of hard coded and options to hold rather than reject, but it will work.
The post at <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2013-June/075342.html> had a similar request plus a per list limit. A per list limit could easily be added. It's the same thing except all post times are kept for the list instead of separately by poster. The handler could be easily modified to do both. Maybe on the next slow day ;)
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark Sapiro wrote:
See <http://www.msapiro.net/scripts/PostLimit.py> (mirrored at <http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~msapiro/scripts/PostLimit.py>)for a script that limits the number of posts from a member to a list either per calendar day or a configurable period of hours.
It could be made lots fancier with the limit and time period being list attributes or mm_cfg variables instead of hard coded and options to hold rather than reject, but it will work.
I have enhanced the script at the above locations to support a per member limit and/or a per list limit. I have also made it take parameters from list attributes if set there and provided a sample extend.py to enable it and set parameters for a list.
Additionally, I have created a FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/V4Hz> with this information.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
On 07/15/2013 01:03 PM, Nezih Yasar wrote:
This our problem, an embedded rule may ease our pain. But we can manage it as in last fifteen years countenancing dropped memberships continues... I am not sure whether this situation requires such a tool, some of our members demand it.
Assuming Richard's suggestion of just moderating the offenders is not acceptable, you could do this with a custom handler <http://wiki.list.org/x/l4A9>. If you want to do that and need coding help, just ask.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (5)
-
David Benfell -
Mark Sapiro -
Nezih Yasar -
Richard Damon -
Stephen J. Turnbull