Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
Hi Marco, *, M. Fioretti schrieb: On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 15:16:35 PM +0100, Christian Lohmaier (lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com) wrote: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:05 AM, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: 1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks would have learned from the OOo list history. Excuse me? What is wrong with allowing non-subscribers messages? And what would you have learned from OOo list history? Christian, NoOp refers, I think, to what I summarized in this post last November, just to not rewrite it every time these discussions come up: http://stop.zona-m.net/2010/11/a-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-libreoffice/ please note that I explicitly acknowledge in that page that it is unavoidable that such a support list must accept (after moderation) even messages from unsubscribed users. So (in this case) I agree with you that non-subscribers messages must pass. Which in my opinion is managed quite well with the moderaters work. This said, the OOo list history is there. What may be learned from it is up to the reader. And, of course, what can actually be done today by LibO to not repeat those particular mistakes depends on the available infrastructure. I read Your page (second time :o))) and second what You wrote. One solution could be: For each mail sent to the list from a not subscribed user send a automtically generated answer to his mailadress containing the already generated search hash for http://www.mail-archive.com. So no volunteer is bothered to even think about any subscription issues and the once in his life asking member will be provided with the answers. Already done: Each message sent to any of our public lists already has such a header. This is the one of Your post I'm replying to: Archived-At: http://go.mail-archive.com/RjF-au8F7oa5W9Jc7Z9f2S2YwhA= No clue how much work implementing such thing. Gruß/regards -- Friedrich Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/ LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images (german version already started) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
On Mar 9, 2011, at 08:50 , James Wilde wrote: On Mar 9, 2011, at 04:05 , NoOp wrote: Of late there are multiple posts on the users list regarding mail list subscribe and unsubscribe issues. snip Florian points out an issue with mailman: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/226 quote We use mlmmj for good reasons. Mailman has a lot of options and the luxury of a web interface, but it's a total mess for moderators. You have one password per list for all moderators, and moderation via e-mail is a pain. /quote Just re-read the msg from Florian quoted above, and the bit NoOp filtered out is: quote That being said, the only viable alternative for the moment was mlmmj (Majordomo is legacy, Smartlist is procmail-based, ezmlm is qmail-only; maybe Sympa is an alternative). So, at the moment, I can't do much about it. Mailman would be great if we didn't need to moderate. Florian /quote This is significant, since, as we are agreed, the only valid reason for moderators, given their limited powers, is, in fact, being able to pass unsubscribed messages. One thing I omitted in my original reply was that a significant portion (don't ask for a %age) of the moderated posts are from regular posters who for some reason post from an address they have not registered. //James -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
Hello, Mailman has not been chosen mainly out of two reasons: 1. Moderation via e-mail is not comfortable. It especially requires one password shared among all moderators, which is inconvenient. 2. Although virtual domains are supported, the list name can only exist once per Mailman installation. That means, disc...@de.libreoffice.org and disc...@it.libreoffice.org could not exist. It rather would have to be de-disc...@de.libreoffice.org and it-disc...@it.libreoffice.org. In addition, managing virtual domain names is a bit more complicated in Mailman compared to mlmmj. I agree that Mailman provides a lot of other great features that would come in handy and would have saved us a lot of time, but the above two limitations are real tough to deal with. I also agree that mlmmj has some drawbacks, but basically, it does it job very well. To my understanding, many complaints would have either occured with other lists as well -- like some people want attachments, others don't, the next ones love forums, others don't -- and other things are not bugs in mlmmj itself. For some configurations, Google Mail seems to omit the + in the addresses, however, the + is supported by RFC, so it's clearly a bug at Google that affects us. Other people complained about not being able to receive e-mail -- most of the time, it has been a few French providers blocking the mails without any reason, and, again, in violation of the RFC, not even answering to e-mails when the postmaster is mailed. Features like mark moderated messages are really desirable, but they are not supported by any other mailing list system, IIRC, so we would have to implement that ourselves anyways. And, what I also see, people simply cannot read. They send email to the help alias, but do not understand what to do. That would have occured with Mailman as well, and I guess people would have even be more confused by the web interface and the password they need. There are a few drawbacks that will be solved with a newer mlmmj release we plan to roll out soon, like the cut-off moderation messages. We also plan to provide an administrative interface, where list owners can edit some settings and (un)subscribe people. I agree that a lack of this is really ugly. However, it needs time and resources, so if anyone volunteers to code, let us know. :-) NoOp wrote on 2011-03-09 04.05: 1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks would have learned from the OOo list history. This is an endless discussion. Ask five people what they prefer, and you get seven replies. I am fine with both, but IMHO, the majority of list moderators wanted unsubscribed posts to be possible. 2. Why are multiple moderators necessary? If it's to get some poor soul to sort reject spam, then there are automated tools to do that instead. Most spam is filtered out already. There are not multiple moderators necessary, it's just convenient. Technically, one is enough. 3. Why are we getting posts on the user other lists using Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful: http://mlmmj.org/ that the user can't unsubscribe, or can't set nomail? Might be related to the Google problem. In addition, Google archives one's own e-mails without putting them into the inbox first, which confuses some more poeple. 4. Why is it necesary to send an email for unsubscribe instructions? That's indeed a limitation for mlmmj -- unsubscription for the digest version of the lists are different than to those for the non-digest. I see no reason for a digest, but lots of users demanded it, so enabled it. It usually leads to broken threads, but then, you can't make everyone happy... :-) Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@libreoffice.org etc at all? Hello... is this some type of secret handshake that takes place to get off of the users list? No. But send an e-mail and *READ*. It's explained in clear words, I guess. :-) What seems to be the problem with simply posting the unsubscribe information on the website and at the bottom of each post? Such as: To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org That does not work for digests. I received a lot of mails from digest users unable to unsubscribe. So why the requirement to send and ask for help? Is it because Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful may not be so resilient/secure overall? Does thelistname+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org not work any longer? It does, but not for digests. Indeed, this *is* a serious drawback that annoys me, but then, I don't have the resources nor the knowledge to fix it. :/ Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive:
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
On 3/9/11 11:07 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hello, Mailman has not been chosen mainly out of two reasons: 1. Moderation via e-mail is not comfortable. It especially requires one password shared among all moderators, which is inconvenient. 2. Although virtual domains are supported, the list name can only exist once per Mailman installation. That means, disc...@de.libreoffice.org and disc...@it.libreoffice.org could not exist. It rather would have to be de-disc...@de.libreoffice.org and it-disc...@it.libreoffice.org. In addition, managing virtual domain names is a bit more complicated in Mailman compared to mlmmj. I agree that Mailman provides a lot of other great features that would come in handy and would have saved us a lot of time, but the above two limitations are real tough to deal with. I also agree that mlmmj has some drawbacks, but basically, it does it job very well. To my understanding, many complaints would have either occured with other lists as well -- like some people want attachments, others don't, the next ones love forums, others don't -- and other things are not bugs in mlmmj itself. For some configurations, Google Mail seems to omit the + in the addresses, however, the + is supported by RFC, so it's clearly a bug at Google that affects us. Other people complained about not being able to receive e-mail -- most of the time, it has been a few French providers blocking the mails without any reason, and, again, in violation of the RFC, not even answering to e-mails when the postmaster is mailed. Features like mark moderated messages are really desirable, but they are not supported by any other mailing list system, IIRC, so we would have to implement that ourselves anyways. And, what I also see, people simply cannot read. They send email to the help alias, but do not understand what to do. That would have occured with Mailman as well, and I guess people would have even be more confused by the web interface and the password they need. There are a few drawbacks that will be solved with a newer mlmmj release we plan to roll out soon, like the cut-off moderation messages. We also plan to provide an administrative interface, where list owners can edit some settings and (un)subscribe people. I agree that a lack of this is really ugly. However, it needs time and resources, so if anyone volunteers to code, let us know. :-) NoOp wrote on 2011-03-09 04.05: 1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks would have learned from the OOo list history. This is an endless discussion. Ask five people what they prefer, and you get seven replies. I am fine with both, but IMHO, the majority of list moderators wanted unsubscribed posts to be possible. 2. Why are multiple moderators necessary? If it's to get some poor soul to sort reject spam, then there are automated tools to do that instead. Most spam is filtered out already. There are not multiple moderators necessary, it's just convenient. Technically, one is enough. 3. Why are we getting posts on the user other lists using Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful: http://mlmmj.org/ that the user can't unsubscribe, or can't set nomail? Might be related to the Google problem. In addition, Google archives one's own e-mails without putting them into the inbox first, which confuses some more poeple. 4. Why is it necesary to send an email for unsubscribe instructions? That's indeed a limitation for mlmmj -- unsubscription for the digest version of the lists are different than to those for the non-digest. I see no reason for a digest, but lots of users demanded it, so enabled it. It usually leads to broken threads, but then, you can't make everyone happy... :-) Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@libreoffice.org etc at all? Hello... is this some type of secret handshake that takes place to get off of the users list? No. But send an e-mail and *READ*. It's explained in clear words, I guess. :-) What seems to be the problem with simply posting the unsubscribe information on the website and at the bottom of each post? Such as: To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org That does not work for digests. I received a lot of mails from digest users unable to unsubscribe. So why the requirement to send and ask for help? Is it because Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful may not be so resilient/secure overall? Does thelistname+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org not work any longer? It does, but not for digests. Indeed, this *is* a serious drawback that annoys me, but then, I don't have the resources nor the knowledge to fix it. :/ Florian Can mailman integrate with spamassassin? if it can why not route the lists through a spamassassin? My reasoning for this is that we will eliminate list moderation and free up moderators for other things. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
On 3/9/11 9:04 AM, James Wilde wrote: On Mar 9, 2011, at 08:50 , James Wilde wrote: On Mar 9, 2011, at 04:05 , NoOp wrote: Of late there are multiple posts on the users list regarding mail list subscribe and unsubscribe issues. snip Florian points out an issue with mailman: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/226 quote We use mlmmj for good reasons. Mailman has a lot of options and the luxury of a web interface, but it's a total mess for moderators. You have one password per list for all moderators, and moderation via e-mail is a pain. /quote Just re-read the msg from Florian quoted above, and the bit NoOp filtered out is: quote That being said, the only viable alternative for the moment was mlmmj (Majordomo is legacy, Smartlist is procmail-based, ezmlm is qmail-only; maybe Sympa is an alternative). So, at the moment, I can't do much about it. Mailman would be great if we didn't need to moderate. Florian /quote This is significant, since, as we are agreed, the only valid reason for moderators, given their limited powers, is, in fact, being able to pass unsubscribed messages. One thing I omitted in my original reply was that a significant portion (don't ask for a %age) of the moderated posts are from regular posters who for some reason post from an address they have not registered. //James James I think that emails being sent from unregistered emails should be rejected, and the user either has to register, or use the email with which they registered. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
Hi *, On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:05 AM, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: [...] I'm not versed on mailman, so I don't know the answer. However, the current issue of mail list subscribers not being able to subscribe/unsubscribe/modify user settings/etc in mlmmj as they can in mailman is an issue. And it will likely be more of an issue as the number of subscribers to the list(s) grow. No. It is always people too ignorant about the mails they get. Instead of actually reading, the skip that part and assume they know everything already. 1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks would have learned from the OOo list history. Excuse me? What is wrong with allowing non-subscribers messages? And what would you have learned from OOo list history? After all it is a setting whether there is a moderator or not. And even then the moderator has the choice whether to approve the message or not. When the moderator doesn't approve it, it is not allowed. And subscribers-only lists are of course possible. 2. Why are multiple moderators necessary? Again: Excuse me‽ It is not necessary to have multiple moderators. If it's to get some poor soul to sort reject spam, then there are automated tools to do that instead. No. It is not just rejecting spam. It is allowing non-subscribers to post. That's completely different. 3. Why are we getting posts on the user other lists using Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful: http://mlmmj.org/ that the user can't unsubscribe, or can't set nomail? Because they are stupid and don't follow instructions. Yes, that's mostly the case. 4. Why is it necesary to send an email for unsubscribe instructions? Because of 3, because there are digest and non-digest subscriptions, there are I'm subscribed, but I don't want to get mail subscriptions. You cannot put links for all of those into the footer. When I subscribed I received the following: ... From: discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org [...] To unsubscribe send a message to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org So here you got your answer why people are unable to unsubscribe, they are just not reading the mails they get, they don't follow the instructions. And you mentioned that one could have learned from OOo lists: Ha, that is a good one. The OOo lists have explicit unsubscribe instructions in *every* footer, but still people complain about not knowing to unsubscribe. So having that in the footer will not help *at all* ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
On 3/9/11 3:23 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, Jonathan Aquilina wrote on 2011-03-09 14.53: Can mailman integrate with spamassassin? if it can why not route the lists through a spamassassin? My reasoning for this is that we will eliminate list moderation and free up moderators for other things. we do Greylisting, in-SMTP-policy checking, as well as SpamAssassin already, including some sanity checks. Nothing will keep you 100% spam free. Florian Have you tried using spamassassin with baysian filtering. the way I have things setup on my mail server is that emails are checked and given a score default being 5. anything 5 or higher is automatically filtered as spam. my friends server setup in this method has prevented lots of spam for him coming though -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
Hi, Jonathan Aquilina wrote on 2011-03-09 15.25: Have you tried using spamassassin with baysian filtering. the way I have things setup on my mail server is that emails are checked and given a score default being 5. anything 5 or higher is automatically filtered as spam. my friends server setup in this method has prevented lots of spam for him coming though bayesian filtering including autolearning is enabled. A site as prominent as ours has much harder times of doing spam filtering than a less popular site. I guess for that we do very well. :-) Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
On 3/9/11 3:27 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, Jonathan Aquilina wrote on 2011-03-09 15.25: Have you tried using spamassassin with baysian filtering. the way I have things setup on my mail server is that emails are checked and given a score default being 5. anything 5 or higher is automatically filtered as spam. my friends server setup in this method has prevented lots of spam for him coming though bayesian filtering including autolearning is enabled. A site as prominent as ours has much harder times of doing spam filtering than a less popular site. I guess for that we do very well. :-) Florian I guess if you would like i can work on beefing up the spam filtering -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
(sorry if this is a duplicate, my mail server had problems earlier today) On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 15:16:35 PM +0100, Christian Lohmaier (lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com) wrote: On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:05 AM, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: 1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks would have learned from the OOo list history. Excuse me? What is wrong with allowing non-subscribers messages? And what would you have learned from OOo list history? Christian, NoOp refers, I think, to what I summarized in this post last November, just to not rewrite it every time these discussions come up: http://stop.zona-m.net/2010/11/a-proposal-for-effective-volunteer-friendly-user-support-in-libreoffice/ please note that I explicitly acknowledge in that page that it is unavoidable that such a support list must accept (after moderation) even messages from unsubscribed users. So (in this case) I agree with you that non-subscribers messages must pass. This said, the OOo list history is there. What may be learned from it is up to the reader. And, of course, what can actually be done today by LibO to not repeat those particular mistakes depends on the available infrastructure. Marco -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
Hi all, M. Fioretti wrote (09-03-11 19:45) please note that I explicitly acknowledge in that page that it is unavoidable that such a support list must accept (after moderation) even messages from unsubscribed users. So (in this case) I agree with you that non-subscribers messages must pass. Just one not from me. I am one of the moderators for users@ When a message comes in the moderation cue, I often send a mail to the person, explaining about subscribing briefly. ANd I pass the mail to the list. People that send repeatedly without subscribing, I ignore. regards, Cor -- - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
Of late there are multiple posts on the users list regarding mail list subscribe and unsubscribe issues. A post back in October [tdf-discuss] Mailing list user preferences?: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/100 [Note: I tried to find the thread in: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/threads.html but couldn't figure out how to easily search gave up] discusses some of this. Florian points out an issue with mailman: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/226 quote We use mlmmj for good reasons. Mailman has a lot of options and the luxury of a web interface, but it's a total mess for moderators. You have one password per list for all moderators, and moderation via e-mail is a pain. /quote But I wonder if the issue with mailman (moderator passwords) is actually the case: http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin.pdf I'm not versed on mailman, so I don't know the answer. However, the current issue of mail list subscribers not being able to subscribe/unsubscribe/modify user settings/etc in mlmmj as they can in mailman is an issue. And it will likely be more of an issue as the number of subscribers to the list(s) grow. Perhaps Florian et al can explain just how TDF plan to implement the lists, now and in the future? Some questions: 1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks would have learned from the OOo list history. 2. Why are multiple moderators necessary? If it's to get some poor soul to sort reject spam, then there are automated tools to do that instead. 3. Why are we getting posts on the user other lists using Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful: http://mlmmj.org/ that the user can't unsubscribe, or can't set nomail? 4. Why is it necesary to send an email for unsubscribe instructions? Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@libreoffice.org etc at all? Hello... is this some type of secret handshake that takes place to get off of the users list? This list has: Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org What seems to be the problem with simply posting the unsubscribe information on the website and at the bottom of each post? Such as: To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org To unsubscribe, e-mail to users+unsubscr...@libreoffice.org When I subscribed I received the following: ... From: discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org ... Subject: =?utf-8?q?Welcome_to_discuss=40documentfoundation.org?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Encoding: 8bit Welcome! You have been subscribed to the discuss@documentfoundation.org mailinglist. To unsubscribe send a message to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org And for help send a message to: discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org So why the requirement to send and ask for help? Is it because Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful may not be so resilient/secure overall? Does the listname+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org not work any longer? Let's please discuss nip this issue in the bud now/early before the lists/users grow can no longer be managed properly. Gary Lee -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues
On Mar 9, 2011, at 04:05 , NoOp wrote: Of late there are multiple posts on the users list regarding mail list subscribe and unsubscribe issues. snip Florian points out an issue with mailman: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/226 quote We use mlmmj for good reasons. Mailman has a lot of options and the luxury of a web interface, but it's a total mess for moderators. You have one password per list for all moderators, and moderation via e-mail is a pain. /quote mlmmj is no better for moderators. The choice we have is pass/no pass. And moderation is still via email, and is still a pain. We have no way of making public that a message has been moderated, 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, so that sending the message is a two-click job instead of a one-click job, since my client is set to warn me when I send an email without subject. Not substantial when there are only a couple of messages, but a PITA when there are twenty. 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. When I think moderation, I think of moderation as it applies to a forum, or, for that matter, possibly the Nabble interface. A moderator should be able to redirect a message if, for example, a website issue is sent to users, or, more commonly, users and discuss are confused, but we can't do that. Naturally we'd have to let the OP know in such a case, but that would be part of the job. But I wonder if the issue with mailman (moderator passwords) is actually the case: http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin.pdf I'm not versed on mailman, so I don't know the answer. However, the current issue of mail list subscribers not being able to subscribe/unsubscribe/modify user settings/etc in mlmmj as they can in mailman is an issue. And it will likely be more of an issue as the number of subscribers to the list(s) grow. +10 Perhaps Florian et al can explain just how TDF plan to implement the lists, now and in the future? Some questions: 1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks would have learned from the OOo list history. Personally I don't have much of an issue with this. It's for their sakes that we have moderators. A new user is likely to have a question or two when something doesn't work quite the same way it does in MS Word, for example, but for the most part can make his/her own way. And there is a resistance to giving one's email address to everybody and his brother, so the ability to send one or two messages to a list and watch for responses on a web interface is just what they need. Then they go away, and never get the flood of mail messages they don't want, and additionally have no problem unsubscribing. Subscribing with the no-mail option is not really an option here since they think they need the mail in order to get their reply. * From this point of view alone, a mailing list with ability to send a message without signing up has the edge over a forum.* In every other respect mailing lists are so twentieth century. 2. Why are multiple moderators necessary? If it's to get some poor soul to sort reject spam, then there are automated tools to do that instead. Actually, sorting spam is a very minor part of the job, at least up to now, so the automated tools do their job. But my subjective impression is that spam is beginning, slowly, to increase. To my way of thinking - again from the forum world - the principal job of a moderator is to try and maintain a civilised intercourse between participants, and either warn or shut off uncivil ones. To warn we don't have to be moderators, and we can't shut off uncivil ones, so no advantage here. Now if mlmmj had a membership form that was read-only, and we moderators could impose it on a member for a period... 3. Why are we getting posts on the user other lists using Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful: http://mlmmj.org/ that the user can't unsubscribe, or can't set nomail? Now THAT is a serious problem. I agree with NoOp that the trickle of help-me-unsubscribe messages is beginning to resemble the Queensland floods. 4. Why is it necesary to send an email for unsubscribe instructions? Right on! snip Let's please discuss nip this issue in the bud now/early before the lists/users grow can no longer be managed properly. //James -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are
