Shawn Walker wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Alan Burlison wrote:
>>> Glynn Foster wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Garrett. If someone is willing to step up, volunteer
>>>> their time, and moderate a list so that auto-reject can be turned
>>>> off, then I think we should be willing to accommodate that from an
>>>> infrastructure point of view. Quite how that works if there's any
>>>> politics involved, I don't know. Perhaps Alan might be able to
>>>> generate some stats on who the poor list administrators are in
>>>> terms of when they last logged in?
>>>
>>> I believe this is now being sorted, but just a note about the
>>> auto-reject setting: that's something that is done by the list
>>> owners, the lists are not set up by default that way. And as I said
>>> before, if the owners don't get to the messages we are moderating
>>> the lists anyway, so there shouldn't be a problem with mails sitting
>>> in queues for a long time.
>>>
>>
>> I understand this, thank you. In my opinion, either this option
>> should (auto reject) should not be available to list owners, or they
>> should be strongly discouraged from doing so (perhaps with rationale
>> included.)
>>
>> The exceptional cases might be lists that are strictly intended for
>> conversations between small numbers of folks and not intended to be
>> "open". (For example, the list for communications between OGB members.)
>>
>> I believe so strongly in this that I think there should be an
>> official policy about it -- one that would be blessed by the OGB.
>
> Garrett, while I understand your frustrations with list moderations,
> if list owners don't want to have to individual moderate messages, it
> is their right to choose to auto-reject or discard them as the list is
> their responsibility.
>
> Trying to force a policy like this will likely just end up with email
> sitting in a queue where it waits forever to be moderated.
>
> For the record, moderation doesn't bother me, and so I do it, but I
> don't expect others to do so if they don't want to; this is a
> meritocracy after all...
>
> Cheers,
Bounced messages are *painful* to anyone who has to endure them. I
can't tell you how many times I've been faced with a choice to either
a) figure out which address I can actually send from, or
b) just give up and decide that the reply I was sending only needed
to go to the sender, or
c) ask someone who is a member of the list to forward the message to me
Right now this problem is a serious impediment to collaboration. As
such, the laissez faire approach that it sounds like you and Alan are
using here is, IMO, harmful.
Remember, many list owners are not "experienced" mailing list
administrators, and as such, the pitfalls of this configuration may not
be readily apparent.
At a minimum, I think there should be a recommendation made to list
owners against this configuration.
-- Garrett
