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.
Levente
Tobi 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.
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 -
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. So, if the number of emails to check is low enough, I'd rather hold them for moderation.
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 -
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 -
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
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?
You can't repeat your message with the same message id once your original mail has been discarded/rejected, can you?
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.
So that's about 3 messages a day.
Levente
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 -
On 13.02.2017, at 20:02, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
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?
You can't repeat your message with the same message id once your original mail has been discarded/rejected, can you?
I quite don't get the scenario :/
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.
So that's about 3 messages a day.
yea, seems to have been more in the past
Levente
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 -
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
On 13.02.2017, at 20:02, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
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?
You can't repeat your message with the same message id once your original mail has been discarded/rejected, can you?
I quite don't get the scenario :/
E.g. some Pharo guy replies to a message sent to both Squeak's and Pharo's mailing list. If the guy is not subscribed to the Squeak list and you're not subscribed to Pharo list, you'll never know about that message unless someone subscribed to both lists replies to that message. If the guy decides to subscribe to the Squeak list due to the notification and resends the message to the Squeak list, then that message will only be sent to the Squeak list, so the thread will be split.
Levente
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.
So that's about 3 messages a day.
yea, seems to have been more in the past
Levente
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 -
Ideally that would mean that a message which is an _answer_ to a message sent to _both_ lists gets sent to the Squeak list in any case.
--Hannes
On 2/14/17, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
On 13.02.2017, at 20:02, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
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 Freudenbergwrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Tobias Pape Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote:
Dear all I request the permission to moderatesqueak-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 followingoptions 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 peopleinstead of holding
Is this a good idea? I don't know if we have a problem withnot 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?
You can't repeat your message with the same message id once your original mail has been discarded/rejected, can you?
I quite don't get the scenario :/
E.g. some Pharo guy replies to a message sent to both Squeak's and Pharo's mailing list. If the guy is not subscribed to the Squeak list and you're not subscribed to Pharo list, you'll never know about that message unless someone subscribed to both lists replies to that message. If the guy decides to subscribe to the Squeak list due to the notification and resends the message to the Squeak list, then that message will only be sent to the Squeak list, so the thread will be split.
Levente
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.
So that's about 3 messages a day.
yea, seems to have been more in the past
Levente
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 -
On 14.02.2017, at 00:18, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
On 13.02.2017, at 20:02, Levente Uzonyi leves@caesar.elte.hu wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
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.
Levente Tobi 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?
You can't repeat your message with the same message id once your original mail has been discarded/rejected, can you?
I quite don't get the scenario :/
E.g. some Pharo guy replies to a message sent to both Squeak's and Pharo's mailing list. If the guy is not subscribed to the Squeak list and you're not subscribed to Pharo list, you'll never know about that message unless someone subscribed to both lists replies to that message. If the guy decides to subscribe to the Squeak list due to the notification and resends the message to the Squeak list, then that message will only be sent to the Squeak list, so the thread will be split.
Ok, then lets keep it this way
Levente
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.
So that's about 3 messages a day.
yea, seems to have been more in the past
Levente
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 -
box-admins@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bert Freudenberg -
H. Hirzel -
Levente Uzonyi -
Tobias Pape