Thanks, everybody, for your responses. I put it up yesterday with the
first dozen of the 30 added in the first wave. I gave some of them full
rights and left the others moderated and played with it all afternoon.
I hope my boss, who gave me the assignment thinks it was a productive
Friday afternoon. ;^)
Anyway, I think I had come to about the same configuration that you all
suggested, and it is nice to have confirmation that I'm thinking down
the right track. I hadn't thought about Brad's point about 130 large
attachments, but it is a good one. One of the things we were thinking
about was a weekly distribution of a dozen 100K spreadsheets. I guess
that's out.
Looks like I'll be spending some time lurking in this forum. I'm not
shy about asking for help, so you'll probably hear from me again.
Thanks for your help.
CJon
Oh! sorry about the big sig. Our IT dept does that for anything that
goes outside the system. I can't turn it off.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This electronic communication is from the Missouri Department of Health
and Senior Services and is confidential, privileged and intended only
for the use of the recipient named above. If you are not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this
information to the intended recipient, unauthorized disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this transmission is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender immediately at the following email address [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or by calling (816) 632-7276. Thank you.
C. Jon Hinkle, Senior Epidemiology Specialist
Division of Environmental Health and Communicable Disease Prevention
Mo. Department of Health and Senior Svcs.
207 E. McElwain
Cameron, Missouri 64429-1395
Phone: (816) 632-7276
Fax: (816) 632-1636
>>> Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/21/05 8:26 PM >>>
At 4:27 PM -0600 2005-01-20, C. Jon Hinkle wrote:
> In either instance, how do I account for worthwhile replies that
would
> be beneficial for the entire list to see?
Generally speaking, munging the Reply-To: header is considered
to
be a bad idea -- See
<http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq03.048.htp>.
That said, for certain types of lists, it may make sense to do
this sort of thing. Lists where that is more appropriate tend to be
ones that are run internally to an organization, and where you can
make an across-the-board decision like this and do so with the
approval of management.
> Am I taking the wrong tack here? Is this better done with something
> like default_member_moderation? I could set the flag to off for the
30
> and on for the rest and then set the action to Hold. Then, if the
> posting/reply was worth seeing on the list, it could be approved by a
> single moderator, and if not then it gets rejected and the poster
gets a
> notice.
That's the path I would be inclined to take. You can choose
which people get their moderation bit turned off, so that they can
post directly. Everyone else gets moderated, and you have a small
team of people who do the work of eliminating the wheat from the
chaff.
--
Brad Knowles, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list
Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
