On Saturday 10 September 2005 15:13, Dag Wieers wrote:
I think you have a specific definition of 'list moderation'. Mailman allows to moderate individuals or topics on a case by case basis ... And if necessary he can moderate individuals or topics. (temporary)
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 15:24 -0400, Peter Arremann wrote:
Sorry I misunderstood you then... This makes a lot more sense :-)
What Dag is referring to is the ability of Mailman to easily and explicitly filter any sender or subject (or even body/content).
I have absolutely _no_ issue if even a small (but objective) minority wants my posts (i.e., anything from b.j.smith@ieee.org, as that's all I use now thanx to Yahoo Mail) to be held for "approval" before allowing them to hit the lists. It doesn't bother me one bit, because I don't post things just to hear myself talk, but in the honest, technical pursuit for accuracy, typically via (often annoying, I'll admit, but complete) explanation of first-hand experience.
I'm not here to posting like some /.'er "First Post Whore." Again, I'm open to having _all_ my posts manually approved.
The only thing I ask is that you tell me when you enable it for 2 reasons:
1. I don't wonder if I'm having e-mail issues (and end up sending multiple posts if I don't see my posts hit the mailing list after several hours) and, more importantly,
2. In the cases of downtime or of other, immediate use, I can "TO" the original poster and "CC" the list. The flip side and "bonus" of this is that to an observant receiver, he can just hit "reply" (instead of "replay to all") and get help off-list, avoiding a lot of the "inaccurate addendum" that often results in such threads (which I then feel compelled to respond to for accuracy -- a very annoying approach to some, which feel I'm being "arrogant").
[ HISTORICAL NOTE: In fact, this worked very well when I had a "4-year open flame war" with Steve Litt over at LEAP, where my technical discussions got constantly belittled by his 3rd hand assumptions and other posturing. ]