At 5:59 PM +0100 2006-05-15, David Lee wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that having per-user approval passwords would
>> help the moderators act in a more consistent manner, but it certainly
>> wouldn't hurt.
>
> Hm? The idea is that the genuine sender should be able to avoid
> moderation in the first place.
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the
things that would wind up in the moderator queue (potentially due to
lack of appropriate password), and how those might be handled in an
inconsistent manner.
Whether it's a per-sender approval password or a per-list
approval password, once you're past the automated system and your
post is approved, then the moderators aren't going to see or touch it.
However, while I see some advantages to allowing this route as an
optional alternative, I think the bigger problem is the inconsistency
in the way the moderators will tend to handle the stuff that gets
dumped into their queue.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's much you can do to try to
solve that part of the problem. ;)
> As an aside, is there a way to do "Approved:" as a header (rather than as
> first line of message-body) if the client is Outlook? OWA?
I'm not familiar with those clients. Others on the list might be
more familiar with them, but you might also want to see if there are
other mailing lists, forums, FAQs, etc... that would be oriented
towards the specific clients you're interested in.
> The big question is: which version should we base it on?
Start with the latest current version -- 2.1.8. If the feature
is going to be incorporated into a future version then Tokio, Mark,
or Barry can do any necessary work that might be required to bring it
into whatever version they're working on.
But I would strongly encourage you to make sure you follow the
same style and programming methods, so that the amount of work needed
to integrate your suggested feature would be minimized.
> We would be
> looking to put into into local production (assuming we did it) fairly
> soon, but also be looking to get it incorporated into future versions.
Understood.
> So Mm 2.1.x? 2.2.x? How different are those two versions? (I'm assuming
> not 3.x because that seems to be some way off yet.)
I think 2.2.x is still in fairly formative stages right now, and
anything that would be required to bring the code up from the 2.1.8
baseline to 2.2.x should be something that Tokio, Mark, or Barry can
do as needed.
--
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
LOPSA member since December 2005. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
------------------------------------------------------
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/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy:
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
