Re: [Mailman-Developers] Soliciting feedback on idea for rounding out the permissions model.

2015-02-17 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Feb 17, 2015, at 01:36 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > As you've noticed, we have IMember objects which encapsulate the > > list-centric roles for users. It's important to note though that > > this isn't quite complete because it's possible for validated, > > non-user linked addresses to al

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Soliciting feedback on idea for rounding out the permissions model.

2015-02-16 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Andrew Stuart writes: > >>>Are there any other permissions you can think of? > I figured that an archive, which isn’t really a Mailman resource > anyway(?), Not in the sense that core can enforce any restrictions on archives. Back in the bad old days, I had a ~/public_html and AltaVista crawle

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Soliciting feedback on idea for rounding out the permissions model.

2015-02-16 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Feb 17, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Andrew Stuart wrote: >I figured that an archive, which isn’t really a Mailman resource anyway(?), >has the same permissions as the list that it gets its emails from. I think so. The owner of the mailing list has authoritative control over which archivers are enabled

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Soliciting feedback on idea for rounding out the permissions model.

2015-02-16 Thread Andrew Stuart
I’d be interested to hear what the Postorius/Hyperkitty folks think on the concept of more tangibly defining Mailman resource/user permissions. Presumably Postorius and Hyperkitty somehow grant access to resources and store the permissions information externally? Anyone got any thoughts? as

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Soliciting feedback on idea for rounding out the permissions model.

2015-02-16 Thread Andrew Stuart
>>>Are there any other permissions you can think of? I figured that an archive, which isn’t really a Mailman resource anyway(?), has the same permissions as the list that it gets its emails from. Are there any other Mailman resources beyond user, list, domain, server? There is member, but that

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Soliciting feedback on idea for rounding out the permissions model.

2015-02-16 Thread Barry Warsaw
This looks like a reasonable analysis. On Feb 16, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Andrew Stuart wrote: >To implement, it would need to be possible to define as user as being a >‘serverowner’, and also to be able to define a user as being a ‘domainowner’ >for any given domain. As you've noticed, we have IMemb

[Mailman-Developers] Soliciting feedback on idea for rounding out the permissions model.

2015-02-15 Thread Andrew Stuart
I had an idea about rounding out the Mailman permissions model, interested in hearing thoughts on it. Obviously there has been considerable discussion on this topic before. Mailman already carries much of the information needed for determining user permissions to Mailman resources. Only two thi