[Mailman-Developers] Another item for TODO: Accept list
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:59:39 -0400 (EDT)
> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 02:14:35 -0600
> From: Sean Reifschneider <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Another item for TODO: Accept list
> I didn't see anything in the main list admin page for doing this,
> so I thought I'd write in to request it be put on the todo list.
> There doesn't seem to be an ability to specify a specific "accept"
> list. I'm thinking of a list which if non-empty, only posts from
> addresses on the list would be accepted. The idea is to prevent
> discussion on announce-only mailing lists.
If i understand what you're seeking, there's an option on the privacy page
for doing this. From the details page:
posters (privacy): Addresses of members accepted for posting to this list
without implicit approval requirement. (See "Restrict ... to list
members" for whether or not this is in addition to allowing posting by
Adding entries here will have one of two effects, according to whether
another option restricts posting to members.
If member_posting_only is 'yes', then entries added here will have
posting privilege in addition to list members.
If member_posting_only is 'no', then only the posters listed here will be
able to post without admin approval.
I think the combination with members_posting_only == 'no' amounts to your
> This is certainly something I'd be interested in implementing.
> But, I've got to wonder what happened to the other patches I
> submitted last week... :-)
Ah, this is a problem. It looks like all the core mailman developers are
currently tied up enough, so noone can cater to incorporating - or even
following, at the moment - mailman developments. Sean, if you would do me
the favor of pointing me to the patches - or resend them, just to me -
i'll try to take a moment to look them over.
(We're considering ways to increase the pool of people with privileges to
touch the main development tree _without_ increasing the thrash factor -
shepherding, itself, takes time which may be too scarce even for that at
the moment, but we need to look at it.)
> Or did I just overlook it?
Probably the other way around - we did. (This is late vacation season - i
was away week before last, eg, and i *know* from sparse discussions w/
other mailman developers time is real tight.)