[Mailman-Developers] GSOC Project Discussion

[Richard Wackerbarth]

I'm not convinced that it would require all of the items that you enumerate.

First, you have to look at how messages might get to the list.  Since I specified that the list was a virtual list (unreachable), the only source of messages would be from the internal queue handlers. Thus they would bypass spam filters, etc. and go directly to the distribution queue.

True, we would have to make the lists "hidden" to normal users. But this is not a significant change in list handling. We already have the requirement to hide other lists.

As for "empty lists", that is really a function of how empty lists are handled in general. Perhaps a "divert if empty" policy should be available for all lists. And, at the top of the chain we assure a "last desperation" address because no-one has the right to delete THAT one entry.

I agree that it might be messier. But it still might be cleaner if you want the moderators, etc. to have all of the "subscription options"

On May 17, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:

> Richard Wackerbarth writes:
> 
>> Would it be easier if we just treated owners and moderators as a
>> couple of additional mailing lists?
> 
> That would require additional, complex attributes that aren't
> appropriate for most lists to be given to all lists.  They'd have to
> have a .virtual_list_for attribute, for example.  If non-null, you
> can't post to it.  (Or can you?  Messy.)  The owner list would have to
> have a .cant_delete_last_subscriber attribute.  These lists need to be
> suppressed when working with the set of "real" mailing lists.  These
> lists should be exempted from spam-checking since only Mailman core
> ever posts to them.  (Or should they?  See above.)  I think this all
> violates duck-typing and gets messier, not easier.
> 
>> Thus a moderator would be subscribed to the <XXX(moderators)> list
>> and that subscription handled just as any other subscription would
>> be handled.
> 
> I don't think this will fit users' models of the moderator and owner
> roles.  Mailing lists have moderators, not an auto-generated
> associated mailing list containing only the moderators.

That all depends on how you present it, not on how you implement it.  IIRC, the list of moderators is a roster, just like the subscribers.  A different template can make two rosters appear to be quite different.

> My $0.02.

2 yen :)

> Steve