Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Alan Burlison wrote: >> Glynn Foster wrote: >> >>> I agree with Garrett. If someone is willing to step up, volunteer >>> their time, and moderate a list so that auto-reject can be turned >>> off, then I think we should be willing to accommodate that from an >>> infrastructure point of view. Quite how that works if there's any >>> politics involved, I don't know. Perhaps Alan might be able to >>> generate some stats on who the poor list administrators are in terms >>> of when they last logged in? >> >> I believe this is now being sorted, but just a note about the >> auto-reject setting: that's something that is done by the list owners, >> the lists are not set up by default that way. And as I said before, >> if the owners don't get to the messages we are moderating the lists >> anyway, so there shouldn't be a problem with mails sitting in queues >> for a long time. >> > > I understand this, thank you. In my opinion, either this option should > (auto reject) should not be available to list owners, or they should be > strongly discouraged from doing so (perhaps with rationale included.) > > The exceptional cases might be lists that are strictly intended for > conversations between small numbers of folks and not intended to be > "open". (For example, the list for communications between OGB members.) > > I believe so strongly in this that I think there should be an official > policy about it -- one that would be blessed by the OGB.
Garrett, while I understand your frustrations with list moderations, if list owners don't want to have to individual moderate messages, it is their right to choose to auto-reject or discard them as the list is their responsibility. Trying to force a policy like this will likely just end up with email sitting in a queue where it waits forever to be moderated. For the record, moderation doesn't bother me, and so I do it, but I don't expect others to do so if they don't want to; this is a meritocracy after all... Cheers, -- Shawn Walker
