On 13.02.2017, at 18:24, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux@gmx.de> wrote: Dear all I request the permission to moderate squeak-dev. I want to: - approve ok pending messages - discard held messages that are spam etc. - add spammers to blacklists. So that the server stays more clean than it does currently: - 16 messages in the last 3 days AFTER I purged _all_ ~2000 held messages that accumulated over the years If approved, I'd also change the following options serverside: - discard mail from not subscribed people instead of holding - turn off password reminders (those are dagngerous..) - discard held messages after 30 days (currently indefinitely) And maybe apply this to all our lists. Best regards -Tobias +1 - Bert - +1 Dave Just one question (not an objection, just a question): - discard mail from not subscribed people instead of holding Is this a good idea? I don't know if we have a problem with not subscribed people posting to the list, but I would be generally inclined to avoid adding any new restrictions unless they solve a real problem. Again, I am not objecting, just asking because I do not know.I dislike the idea to automatically reject those emails, because that breaks cross-list conversations. The current situation is no better (as Tobias described), but with proper moderation it would be better. +1 on all the other things.
LeventeTobi was suggesting discarding, not rejecting (but possibly that was a typo). The difference is that the sender gets notified of their possibly honest mistake in one case, whereas it silently fails in the other. I'd personally be in favor of rejecting, not discarding. The third option is holding, but that puts a lot of burden on the moderator, as you said there are dozens of spam mails each day. Perhaps we can hold only messages that pass a spam filter? In any case I'm happy to defer to Levente's opinion as box admins lead.
It would still break the cross-list conversation.
How so?
So, if the number of emails to check is low enough, I'd rather hold them for moderation.
We have currently 23 hold messages, since I just meanly purged them a week ago.
Levente
Except for this single issue, the board approves your request Tobi (there were a couple of +1 in this thread that didn't make it to the box-admins list). And thank you for volunteering :)
- Bert -