[Box-Admins] [Board] Request permission to moderate squeak-dev

[H. Hirzel]

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 at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
>
>>
>> On 13.02.2017, at 20:02, Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Tobias Pape wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13.02.2017, at 18:24, Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at 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 at 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.
>
> 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 -
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>