Felipe Contreras wrote: > Right, but I wonder if I send a mail to all the *-owner lists. Maybe > the Reply-To would be munged and the threads will diverge. The *-owner addresses are simply aliases. They are not mailing lists themselves. > I think it's much safer just to grep for all the admins and send a > mail directly. Please don't. While I can't stop you from doing so, I personally would find it annoying if everyone that wanted to contact me with some business related to the users list did so by direct email. It makes filtering mail difficult for one. > Ok, I don't mean to offend, but what is there to do for a ml if not > moderate messages? Changing the settings? That's not really much > work at all IMO. Yeah, the users list is one of the easier lists. Other lists, like the websites list, where webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mail goes, take more effort precisely because they allow non-members to post. (And, for the websites list, not doing so would be completely wrong.) For this list, it's much more of a debatable position. > In any case, there has been only speculation about the amount of > moderation that would need to be done, right? In my experience it's > pretty easy to spot spam mail, so even without spam filtering I > think the job of moderating should not be that hard. For the websites list it ranges around 20 or so messages a day. I have some handy scripts to help automate it as much as I can, but it still takes some time. Adding more, higher volume lists would only add to that time. Worse though, IMO, is that it introduces a delay into the communication while folks who's messages are moderated wait for myself or another admin to check and clear the message. I think it's preferable to simply reject non-member posts, which lets the sender know the list policy requires subscription. The previous setting of discarding such mail was a mistake, again IMO. > You could put me as moderator to give a try, there can't be much > damage to be done. In the worst case I would discard good mail as > spam, but that's what the system has been doing all along up to today. > If it really seems to be too much work, then the exercise can be > cancelled. Something to be discussed with the other list admins/moderators. I'm not sold on the idea of making list posting open, but I'd be willing to try it and see what effect it had on the moderation queue. Thank you for your offer. :) > BTW. I'm noticing something wrong in the Reply-To header of this mail > (two times the ml) This comes from some folks sending mail to the old fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx address. I've not looked closely to see whether we can fix that up. It would likely take a little work at the system level on the mailman server and possibly coordinating with the redhat.com mailman admins. (The Fedora Project now hosts our own mailman server, rather than using the same setup as Red Hat.) -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good judgment comes with experience. Unfortunately, the experience usually comes from bad judgment.
Attachment:
pgp6SETnojfI9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
