[Mailman-Users] Request for some additional configuration features
D G Teed
donald.teed at gmail.com
Wed Apr 25 15:44:43 CEST 2007
On 4/24/07, Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org> wrote:
> At 4:17 PM -0300 4/24/07, D G Teed wrote:
> > 1. We are not interested in RFC 2369 headers in email. None of our
> > lists are public lists driven by users opting in/out. Users are on the
> > and we don't allow them access to the website to flick their options
> > I'd like all mailing lists created to have List-* headers suppressed.
> > I have not seen an option for that in Defaults.py/mm_cfg.py
> See FAQ 4.1.
If ALLOW_RFC2369_OVERRIDES = NO actually suppresses all LIST-*
headers, I wish it said that. It doesn't. It says that it removes the
ability for list admins to suppress the headers.
Inside Defaults.py it says:
# By setting it to No, list
# owners will not be given the option to suppress these headers (although
# header suppression may still take place, i.e. for announce-only lists, or
# lists with no archives).
That seems to say that it merely toggles the appearance of the controls for
the RFC2369 headers in the web administration.
Is that correct? What we want is for all lists created, no matter what
sort, to default to
no RFC2369 headers. It is not practical to edit 2300 lists, although if it
to script a solution that might be a workaround.
> 2. We have an announcements only list to which we would like
> > to have the moderator-only post it, hold it for moderation
> > (to prevent accidental use of Send), and also receive a copy to verify
> > if there were any delivery delays. We have played with moderation
> > tag on the user, and followed the guide on how to make a one way
> > list, but it seems the only solution is to have the moderator
> > subscribe on another email address so that they can post to
> > the list as well as receive, while it is one-way list. Am I missing
> > a combination of options which provides for this sort of one
> > way list with a hold for moderation?
> I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for. It is possible for a
> list moderator to also be a list member, so that they receive copies
> of all posts to the list. All that needs to happen there is that
> they go through the same list subscription process as everyone else,
> although you may need to clear their moderation bit depending on how
> they handle the moderation process.
> Setting up announcement-only lists is covered in FAQ 3.11, with some
> additional hints in FAQ 3.34. The only difference might be that you
> set the member_moderation_action to be "hold" instead of "reject".
> If there's something about this process which is not clear, please
> help us to understand what you're trying to do and which instructions
> you've tried to follow, and we'll see if there's anything else we can
> do for you.
Yes, we are using reject. We prefer reject as then it isn't necessary to
go in and search for the real message to release amongst the ones held
from others, and it is better for most list members or non-members to
immediately get a notification that posting is not available to them.
Essentially, we want a one way list, where the list admin is a recipient,
from the list admin are held for moderation as a safety valve, and all other
posts are rejected with a "I'm sorry you can't post to the list" message.
I would think this combination would be common in the case where
the one way communications to the subscribers requires careful crafting and
double checking before sending, as well as verification of the delivery.
If the list admin was set for no moderation, and yet the list requires
all postings to be held for moderation, then the posting is not held.
So that combo didn't work for us.
The current workaround I've made, is to subscribe the list admin as
through a gmail account, and have gmail forward emails to her regular work
since she does not want to check the second account. With this method,
I've listed the list admin's work email under Privacy options as a
non-member who can post to the list. All non-members or members
who post to the list get an immediate reject. This might be the best
for the present time.
More information about the Mailman-Users