[Mailman-Users] Verifying posts

Jim Popovitch 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. ;-)

-Jim P.

More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list