[Mailman-Users] 2.1.18 internal documentation suggestions

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Mark Sapiro writes:

 > dmarc_moderation_action is unreliable. If the DNS lookup times out, the
 > message is assumed unaffected by DMARC.

Ouch.  I suppose you could hard-code a list of miscreants, er, domains
that have used p=reject and fall back on that (including a check for a
change in policy of DMARC DoS'ers that results in an email to owner).

 > If I could, I would set dmarc_moderation_action to Reject with a gentle
 > suggestion to find another ESP to post from, but I can't.

Heck, even I don't recommend that (I do it, but that's only because I
*can* -- as I've mentioned my users are all looking for excuses to
switch to GMail anyway if they haven't done so already).

 > One particular member of the board of directors is a very vocal and
 > not very technical Yahoo user who I think would have a fit if her
 > mail were "singled out" for differing treatment, even if only that
 > hers was munged and mine wasn't.

Tell her it's mandated by Yahoo! and hard-coded in Mailman (blame
Barry! and don't tell her about the Time Machine), *your* hands are
tied. :-)

 > I have tried in the past to programmatically hold or reject "me
 > too" posts and others that have way more quoted that original material.
 > (Almost everyone top posts and quotes the entire message being replied
 > to.)

But this is different: it really is censorship.  It's censorship I
agree with, it's censorship that doesn't actually infringe on freedom
of expression, but it is prohibiting certain (obnoxious) forms of
expression.

N.B. If top posting bothered me (in channels where it is customary, it
doesn't bother me any more :-), I would implement a Handler that
removes trailing quoted material and substitutes a link to the
archives (if possible to the In-Reply-To message).