Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com):

> That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that 
> impose tricky processing exceptions merely to defeat spam. 

With great respect:  It's not that.

The GNU Mailman default setting of 10 maximum To: and Cc: recipients for a 
posting to propagate through without being queued for manual approval
is, in my experience, about right, even though the de-facto limit with
that default setting appears to be 1 or 2 fewer (probably a fencepost
error in the code).  Mail with a higher number of To: and Cc: recipients 
has a very high correlation with spamicity and with posting misbehaviour 
such as attempts to foment cross-mailing-list flamewars.

The listadmins could, if they wish, (say) double that default number,
raising the limit to 20.  I'm betting that a significantly higher amount
of problematic traffic would get through over time (albeit I could be
wrong).

But, additionally, as a reminder, what Simon actually suggested was that
people avoid _cross-posting_.  I concur that this is a good suggestion for 
numerous reasons, including it making a lot more work for the listadmins
of each included forum (given limited overlap of the subscriber bases).
A better practice, if you wish to have a similar discussion on multiple
mailing lists, is to post to each one separately.  Yes, that's not the
least-effort course of action.  You'll probably have noticed that The
Right Thing seldom is.  ;->

> I am frustrated that my "reply-all" can cause a multi-day delay in the
> dissemination of my "deep wisdom" or delay the "deep wisdom" of my
> colleagues here. 

IIRC, the problem wasn't reply-all as such (which is A Good Thing), but
rather inclusion of a rather large number of To: and Cc: recipients in
part because of cross-posting across multiple mailing lists.  Which gets
us back to Simon's point.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

[Lawrence Rosen]

Yes, Simon and Rick, I'm sorry I misunderstood Simon's use of the term 
"moderated." As a moderator of another opensource.org list, I can assure you I 
wasn't being disrespectful of moderators.

That said, I remain concerned about our antique mailing list procedures that 
impose tricky processing exceptions merely to defeat spam. I am frustrated that 
my "reply-all" can cause a multi-day delay in the dissemination of my "deep 
wisdom" or delay the "deep wisdom" of my colleagues here. That is technology 
defeating communication. There is better open source technology for discussion 
lists!

/Larry


-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Rick Moen
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 1:03 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

Quoting Simon Phipps (webm...@opensource.org):

> I now regret expending volunteer effort trying to help Mr Rosen & 
> others avoid delays getting their deep wisdom disseminated.

I hope and expect that Mr Rosen merely misunderstood, and that he joins me in 
deeply appreciating your efforts.  (My apologies for mistyping your surname, by 
the way.)

(Yes, BTW, I am a fellow listadmin.  ;->  )

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Simon Phipps (webm...@opensource.org):

> I now regret expending volunteer effort trying to help Mr Rosen & others
> avoid delays getting their deep wisdom disseminated.

I hope and expect that Mr Rosen merely misunderstood, and that he
joins me in deeply appreciating your efforts.  (My apologies for
mistyping your surname, by the way.)

(Yes, BTW, I am a fellow listadmin.  ;->  )

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

[Simon Phipps]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Rick Moen  wrote:

> Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was
> addressing this question to Simon Phipps:
>
> > I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all?
> > Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's?
>
> I think there's some confusion here caused by inexact wording and the
> word 'moderated' having overloaded meanings:
>

I now regret expending volunteer effort trying to help Mr Rosen & others
avoid delays getting their deep wisdom disseminated.


> Simon Philpps (part of a group of OSI listadmins) mentioned having to
> appprove several recent postings from the listadmin queue that were held
> because of 'too many recipients'.  The Mailman default setting for this
> item ('Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting', on
> page Privacy Options, Recipient Filters) is 10, though in practice the
> filter seems to trigger on a slightly lower number of recipients.
>
> I infer that Simon, when he spoke of having to 'moderate through'
> postings, meant merely ones that landed in the listadmin queue.  He was
> quite correctly and very benignly giving people advice on how to avoid
> the admin queue.
>
> license-discuss appears to not set any subscriber's 'moderated' flag by
> default -- which again is GNU Mailman's default configuration.  So, I
> strongly suspect that you (Lawrence), and John, and Henrik, do _not_
> have that flag set.  (IMO:) Smart list administration, like smart system
> administration, aspires to automate, to limit manual exception-handling to
> a bare minimum.
>

Exactly, thanks for the explanation.

S.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com)i, who I think was
addressing this question to Simon Phipps:

> I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all?
> Or John Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's? 

I think there's some confusion here caused by inexact wording and the
word 'moderated' having overloaded meanings:

Simon Philpps (part of a group of OSI listadmins) mentioned having to
appprove several recent postings from the listadmin queue that were held
because of 'too many recipients'.  The Mailman default setting for this
item ('Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting', on
page Privacy Options, Recipient Filters) is 10, though in practice the
filter seems to trigger on a slightly lower number of recipients.

I infer that Simon, when he spoke of having to 'moderate through'
postings, meant merely ones that landed in the listadmin queue.  He was
quite correctly and very benignly giving people advice on how to avoid
the admin queue.

license-discuss appears to not set any subscriber's 'moderated' flag by
default -- which again is GNU Mailman's default configuration.  So, I
strongly suspect that you (Lawrence), and John, and Henrik, do _not_ 
have that flag set.  (IMO:) Smart list administration, like smart system
administration, aspires to automate, to limit manual exception-handling to
a bare minimum.



> I also moderate an opensource.org mailing list. What a drag to discard
> or ignore spam every day!

The only effective way to reduce that, IMO, is to improve automated
spam-rejection at the receiving MTA, which is a hard problem.  Short of
that, set a short retention period (I like 3 days) on 'Discard held
messages older than this number of days', which is at the bottom of the
General Options page -- where GNU Mailman's default is zero (no
automatic discarding).  A short retention period makes spam expire out
of queue rapidly without listadmin work.  Three-day retention gives
listadmins enough time to notice held non-spam over a holiday weekend.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

[Lawrence Rosen]

Johnny Solbu wrote:
> I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is that 
> the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding.

I did a "reply-all" in this thread on purpose, because I had reason to believe 
that at least some of the people CC'd and interested in the thread were not 
subscribed to license-discuss@.

I dislike mailman defaults. Why are you moderating my emails at all? Or John 
Cowan's? Or Henrik Ingo's? 

I also moderate an opensource.org mailing list. What a drag to discard or 
ignore spam every day! But we try to set our list defaults so that we don't 
have to moderate each other even if we intentionally CC third parties. There is 
nothing secret or frightening on our public list.

/Larry

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf 
Of Johnny A. Solbu
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:20 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

On Wednesday 21. June 2017 19.04, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an 
> anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please 
> avoid cross-posting to avoid this.

I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is that the 
happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding.

--
Johnny A. Solbu
web site,   http://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Johnny A. Solbu (joh...@solbu.net):

> I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is
> that the happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when
> responding.

FWIW, if more MUAs (mail user agents) were updated to become compliant
with RFC 2369 section 3.4 (as is my mailer, mutt, also Thunderbird,
KMail, many others), and thus heed the List-Post header, that would no
longer happen.  I refer to this SMTP header in every post:

List-Post: 

Gradually, news of this two-decade old Internet standard is making its
way out to mailer authors.  Perhaps via Pony Express.  ;->

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6378773/correct-email-headers-for-delivering-mailing-list-mail

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Moderator Advice

[Johnny A. Solbu]

On Wednesday 21. June 2017 19.04, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an
> anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid
> cross-posting to avoid this.

I moderate many mailman lists (using listadmin), and my experience is that the 
happens because some people uses «Reply to all» when responding.

-- 
Johnny A. Solbu
web site,   http://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] Moderator Advice

[Simon Phipps]

I just moderated through a set of messages that were all held by an
anti-spam rule because they had too many recipients in To/Cc. Please avoid
cross-posting to avoid this.

Thanks,

Simon
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss