At 12:07 PM -0500 2006-01-03, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I'm actually thinking we need /less/ magic in command line scripts,
> especially for typical user and admin tasks, because I think
> increasingly, fewer people have access to the command line (or know what
> to do with it when they've got it)
At 11:38 PM +0900 2006-01-03, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> My reason for proposing that as default, though, is that if somebody
> requires bigger fonts or smaller screen, then really, shouldn't
> somebody with good eyes or equipment volunteer for that burden?
I don't think you can make
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 09:09 +, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> its a form so not quite like that - try
> http://lists.DOMAIN.TLD/lists/admindb/LIST?adminpw=yourpassword
>
> Personally I have a bookmarks folder within Firefox with all the lists I
> handle as bookmarks within that set up with pas
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 12:21 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> BAW> I find that my typical approach is to scan the summary,
> BAW> opening any potential ham
>
> I assume you mean "ham = on-topic, spam = off-topic, possibly but not
> necessarily UCE"?
In this context, yep!
> Our lists d
On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 22:05 -0600, Brad Knowles wrote:
> For the larger ones, I'd like to see something like Skip's
> "mmfold.py" script that could run locally on the same server where
> the lists are located, so that no use of a web browser is required,
> and so that the program could di
On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 22:10 -0600, Brad Knowles wrote:
> But then we're getting dangerously close to tools like Active
> Spam Killer or TMDA, which I am generally violently opposed to.
I think they're different use cases. My main problem with such tools is
when people email me first, I tr
> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 3. Where possible, the information _and the controls_ for a single
> entry should be on a single line. I think it's reasonable to
> assume as a default that the moderator has at least a 1024px width
> screen
Now
At 5:32 PM +0900 2006-01-03, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> 1. All the ban-author options should go, they take up _way_ too much
> space. In all the lists I've ever subscribed to, I've only seen one
> case where they would have been appropriate, and that guy quickly
> learned not o
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 12:21 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I would assume I could use the
>
> http://USER:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/lists/admindb/LIST
>
> form to autologin. Haven't tried, I'm anal-compulsive about password
> protection, and my browser usually lives for a couple months at a time.
> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brad> I can't speak for Barry or anyone else, but when I use
Brad> Mailman to handle mailing lists for webmaster, postmaster,
Brad> etc..., there is a 99% chance that any one particular
Brad> message is spam, and I have
At 12:21 PM +0900 2006-01-03, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Our lists don't have a topicality problem, so I don't think I've ever
> had need to open a post. The summary subject invariably shows spam
> vs. ham.
I can't speak for Barry or anyone else, but when I use Mailman to
handle ma
> "BAW" == Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BAW> One of the problems that I have with the moderation workflow
BAW> is that I have to log into every list I'm going to moderate,
BAW> and then that login authentication is lost when I kill my
BAW> browser.
I simply have a
> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brad> But then we're getting dangerously close to tools like
Brad> Active Spam Killer or TMDA,
Technically, yes.
Brad> which I am generally violently opposed to.
Brad> Maybe those kinds of tools are appropriate
> "R" == R Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
R> Where I think something inside GNU Mailman could be a little
R> better than a second list is that the integration could enforce
R> that the email associated with person logging in to the webpage
R> or sending moderation by ema
At 8:57 PM -0500 2006-01-01, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> One of the problems that I have with the moderation workflow is that I
> have to log into every list I'm going to moderate, and then that login
> authentication is lost when I kill my browser.
That's why I never kill my browser anymore
At 9:14 PM -0500 2006-01-01, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Come to think of it, a list like mailman-developers could use a variant
> similar to the confirm-and-approve for subscriptions. Admins would only
> see confirmed messages in their queue. At that point, most spam should
> be deleted and the m
On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 12:15 -0500, R. Bernstein wrote:
> ***If I have this correct, where GNU mailman seems to differ from say
> sourceforge bug and feature trackers is that in GNU Mailman where
> there is a password associated with a moderator and an administrator
> *account*, in sourceforge trac
First let me say that I think JC and Brad are doing a great job
moderating the lists, and I /greatly/ appreciate their help with this!
Second, I think there's one more use case that might work well for
general help lists like mailman-users (but not mailman-developers).
There should be a way for no
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 22:22 -0600, Brad Knowles wrote:
> Okay, now that is truly weird. I thought it was kind of
> off-topic myself, but I thought that it would be one that either you
> or Barry would have approved of, so I approved it on that basis.
I definitely think it's on-topic for
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 18:56 -0800, JC Dill wrote:
> The main problem I think Rocky is experiencing is the problem of absent
> moderators, period. Rather than some automated method of turning the
> moderator tasks over to others, I suggest that a better way is to more
> closely oversee pending
On Jan 1, 2006, at 13:51, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 3:48 AM -0500 2006-01-01, Robby Griffin wrote:
>
>> Here's what I've done for somewhat unrelated reasons:
>>
>> - patch bin/discard to support rejecting held messages
>> and providing rejection comments.
>>
>> - add a cron job that rejects
R. Bernstein wrote:
> I guess sometimes things are not what they may seem initally, so many
> thanks for the detailed explanation; it all makes sense. It is also
> interesting to learn that the GNU mailman mailing lists have the same
> problems as other GNU lists. But it sounds like the GNU mailma
At 12:15 PM -0500 2006-01-01, R. Bernstein wrote:
> ***If I have this correct, where GNU mailman seems to differ from say
> sourceforge bug and feature trackers is that in GNU Mailman where
> there is a password associated with a moderator and an administrator
> *account*, in sourceforge track
At 3:48 AM -0500 2006-01-01, Robby Griffin wrote:
> Here's what I've done for somewhat unrelated reasons:
>
> - patch bin/discard to support rejecting held messages
> and providing rejection comments.
>
> - add a cron job that rejects held messages older than 10 days,
> with the followi
Thanks also for the suggestion of setting up a list just to send out
moderator passwords. I'll pass that suggestion and the one by Robby on
global detection of mailing-neglect back to the the GNU discussion
group. I hope that will help. Should they go that route, I'll try to
withdraw the sourceforg
On Dec 31, 2005, at 23:22, Brad Knowles wrote:
> some lists have as many as 100 messages waiting in
> the queue to be moderated, and some of those messages date back to
> May of 2005. I think that this is a problem that needs to be
> addressed within the Mailman package, and not just something t
R. Bernstein wrote:
> Please allow me explain why I initially posted to mailman-developer.
Your reasons make perfect sense. I don't want you to think I was saying
your reasons were "wrong" when I mentioned in my prior post that I might
not have approved your initial post. Just that there is r
Brad Knowles writes:
> Okay, now that is truly weird. I thought it was kind of
> off-topic myself, but I thought that it would be one that either you
> or Barry would have approved of, so I approved it on that basis.
What I find truly weird is all the discussion of the moderation
proces
Brad Knowles writes:
> You can list as many moderators for a list as you like.
Fine. One just needs a way for people who are members of a list
to be able to volunteer to be a moderator.
> But there's a problem with multiple moderators, one that we have
> on the mailman-users and mai
At 6:56 PM -0800 2005-12-31, JC Dill wrote:
> That's a very interesting and accurate observation. In fact, the
> moderated post that started this thread is one that I don't think I
> would have approved for posting to this list! I felt mildly (but not
> strongly) that this was a discussion t
Brad Knowles wrote:
> But there's a problem with multiple moderators, one that we have
> on the mailman-users and mailman-developers lists ourselves -- in
> addition to many other lists hosted on python.org. In short, the
> problem is getting all the moderators to follow the same moderat
At 6:40 PM -0500 2005-12-31, R. Bernstein wrote:
> So it might be nice to have a box or flag for such a mailing list that
> allows anyone who is registered in the mailing list have the pleasure
> of doing email moderation.
You can list as many moderators for a list as you like.
Note: the basic info of the below feature request has been posted
here:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1394592&group_id=103&atid=350103
I received an weird but interesting weird email the other day that got
me thinking about moderation of GNU mailing lists. Here's a pa
33 matches
Mail list logo
