On 8/26/2010 3:55 AM, Carlo Strata wrote:
Hi Everyone!
in my head:
- the term "moderated" means that someone/a software appliance reads the mail and change something
in it to make message more "soft for human eyes" (moderate it!) *before* send it to the list; this
is a behavior that *all* posts (sub and unsub) may be subjected (!!!); this happen in the lists
all over the world;
On this list, and the others for OOo, it means only that the sender is not subscribed and that a
human is deciding whether to pass the message along to the list. There is no team that reviews all
messages prior to their going to the list, and no message text is ever changed; AFAIK, the
moderators could not do so, they can only pass or reject the message in its entirety. It may be
possible to set up a structure and a team that allows the kind of activity you are referring to
(though almost certainly not while we're using CollabNet/ezmlm), but so far there have been very few
people who will do the current moderation, and increasing their responsibilities at this point seems
unlikely to help with that.
- the term [non subscriber] or [not subscriber] are exactly describing what actually and now is
happening in our lists and so are more suitable;
- if you use to moderate mails/posts in mailing lists only for "non subscriber" and so there is a
one-to-one relation between the first two things, this is lists choice, but far to be clear in
many non owner people!!! And this take to frequently mail to thread answers that think "moderated"
means like in my first point/element to make them know that the mean are the second in my list!
All, but nice! All, but intuitive!
If you want to eat an apple, you ask for an apple!
If you want to eat a pizza, you go to Naples and ask for a pizza!
If you want to say a mail is from a "non subscriber" person, you tag it with "non subscriber"
string (also if in your system that is for some ignored cause equivalent to a commonly different
meaning term/word!!!).
Isn't it?
If you want be clear, be clear! You'll see less people sending answer for non subscriber user only
to the target list!
If you want to be perfect change flag to:
[non subscriber, please answer both him and the list]
;-)
Carlo
But the tag itself is applied only to a small subset of the unsubscribed posters; most have no tag
at all, other than the (buried) Delivered-To header. There is also the fact that once the tag is in
the subject line, it carries through to all posts in the thread unless manually removed, and the
actual OP's address is not retained. So chances are excellent that somebody coming in later in the
thread will respond not to the OP, but to the sender of the message to which they are responding.
(This is likely to be a problem with the current tagging, as well.) Finally, since the tag is
carried along throughout the thread, the longer it is the less of the actual subject (if any!) is
visible to people deciding whether or not to follow the thread. So there would perhaps be a
completely unambiguous tag, but that's likely to provide a false sense of security that messages
without the tag are necessarily from subscribers. That's common enough already, and any change to
the tag is likely to confuse people who are used to the current system into thinking that there has
been an actual change in implementation. If we were looking for real, useful information in a tag,
the best in my opinion would be "[email protected] is not subscribed" -- but the cost for this is
probably way higher than the benefit. There are definitely better solutions to be found that would
apply to all messages from unsubscribed posters.
It's entirely understandable that you'd like "moderated" to follow its primary dictionary
definition, but here it's used more in the sense of the moderator of a panel discussion or debate,
who basically maintains order in who is given the chance to speak. Isn't English great?!
<snip>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
