[Mailman-Users] Moderated list: admin vs moderator
paul at IntegrationNewMedia.com
Wed Feb 20 21:40:56 CET 2002
Well, that's the solution with the current Mailman. Something stronger
(digital signatures) would, of course, be desirable but I don't think it's
going to happen in the very near future.
Thinking about it, maybe such a solution can be implemented with procmail and
gpg. Mailman would accept everything that comes to it but procmail would
intercept all emails before Mailman can even get them and test the signature
using gpg. I don't know if anybody actually did it but it should be possible,
if the requirements for security are high.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, John W Baxter wrote:
> At 13:16 -0500 2/20/2002, Paul-Catalin Oros wrote:
> >Implicitly approved
> >people. I just tested this and it works fine.
> Implicitly approved people (addresses) can be forged. Easily.
> Over on the developer list, I recently suggested using digitally signed
> messages as the implicit approval mechanism. Now, we're pretty much
> talking people rather than addresses (throw out the key if one gets
> The responses were all about various ways to implicitly approve addresses.
> No response that I recall seeing discussed digital signatures.
> Oh, well.
> John Baxter jwblist at olympus.net Port Ludlow, WA, USA
> Mailman-Users maillist - Mailman-Users at python.org
The hardness of butter is directly proportional to the softness of the bread.
More information about the Mailman-Users