Hi James, *, On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:50 AM, James Wilde <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 9, 2011, at 04:05 , NoOp wrote: > [...] We have no way of making public that a message has been moderated,
That's just wrong, as the sure hint for that is that it is actually sent to the list subscribers. So when you receive it from the list, it has been subscribed. And even if you don't get that message, approving a message twice won't result in two mails to the list, so that's not an issue, is it? > and/or adding the OPs email address to the list of senders so that Reply All > will include the OP. To approve a message, instead of clicking on Reply and > getting the original subject as subject of the reply email, we get up a new > message with empty subject, [...] Again this is not true, just replying will approve it, no need to open a seperate mail, and that way no reason to manually fill the subject. > Very occasionally a message arrives which I try to answer directly to the > sender, and don't pass the message to the list, but I have no easy way to let > my fellow moderators know, and the chances are that one of them will pass it > anyway. Yes, this can happen, but there's /no/ way to avoid that apart from you, who doesn't want the mail to be posted to the list actually rejecting it. So if you don't want to have it approved/sent to the list, why don't you reject it in the first place? This won't save your fellow moderators the work in sending the mail in void, but again: this cannot be avoided, as even if you would send a mail to all fellow moderators, you cannot be sure that they sync their inboxes every 10 seconds to get your mail before working on the existing ones. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
