[Mailman-Users] Verifying posts
jimpop at yahoo.com
Sun Jan 29 22:04:07 CET 2006
Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 1:28 AM +0900 2006-01-30, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> There was a thread about this in the fairly recent past, perhaps it
>> was on mailman-developers, though. IIRC the consensus was "making
>> this more trouble than it's worth is not going to be easy".
> There is a FAQ entry on how to integrate Mailman with TMDA. IIRC, it
> is one of the longest, most extensive, and most complex FAQ entries.
Yeah, I was trying to avoid that here too. TDMA is overkill for what I
>> In the interest of preempting a flamewar, let me note here that
>> challenge-response systems are a hot button for at least one of the
>> frequent posters on this list, and it would be a good idea to review
>> past threads and be prepared for those arguments.
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm pretty violently opposed to
> TMDA in general.
I am too for the most part, but I do see the need to periodically
validate a poster's intention. I see lists all the time where people
who never would post (receive only) mistakenly hit Reply-All and send
personal comments to the whole list. This feature would be a good thing
for *them* (I'm not solely looking at this from my perspective)
>> There was another thread on mailman-developers about a month ago
>> regarding the idea of weeding out unused addresses, although the
>> policy proposed there was significantly more aggressive.
> I'm not sure I would be opposed to a feature where posts to a list
> that result in moderation would require a confirmation before being
> displayed in the moderation queue (thus eliminating most spam where the
> sender's address is forged), but that's about as far as I would go.
That would work too, although I would then want to be able to auto-mod
posters who don't post frequently. ;-)
More information about the Mailman-Users