Grokbase › Groups › Python › mailman-users › August 2007
FAQ
I have a group of lists on a server, all for different parts of an
organisation. What I would like is a way to set things up such that when
someone who is a meber of one list posts to another the message is held
for moderation. Due to spam load the generic_nonmember_action is
currently set to reject, otherwise that would be a solution.

I can't find a "native" solution in the web interface, but I can extract
membership lists with the list_members command (using sort and uniq to
fix any duplications) and then add them using config_list.

Is this a sane plan? Will the world end if someone is both a member and
is in the hold_these_nonmembers list, or can I use one single master
list of "everyone"? Which takes precendence?

/Par

--
Par Leijonhufvud par at hunter-gatherer.org
Can we skip the boring intelligent part of the debate and save time by
jumping straight to the ad hominems? -- Simon Cozens

Search Discussions

  • Brad Knowles at Aug 10, 2007 at 1:36 am ⇧

    On 8/9/07, Par Leijonhufvud wrote:

    I have a group of lists on a server, all for different parts of an
    organisation. What I would like is a way to set things up such that when
    someone who is a meber of one list posts to another the message is held
    for moderation. Due to spam load the generic_nonmember_action is
    currently set to reject, otherwise that would be a solution.
    There's an unofficial patch for this which allows you to specify that
    subscribers to specified other lists are also allowed to post, but
    I'm not sure if it has been brought up to compatibility for Mailman
    2.1.9, although I know it worked for Mailman 2.1.5. Search the
    archives and the Mailman patch page on SourceForge.

    I know this doesn't quite do what you want, but if you moderate new
    members by default and you explicitly un-moderate actual subscribers
    to the list, then the result should be the same. I think.

    --
    Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org>, Consultant & Author
    LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>
    Slides from Invited Talks: <http://tinyurl.com/tj6q4>

    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  • Par Leijonhufvud at Aug 10, 2007 at 11:09 am ⇧

    Brad Knowles [2007.08.10] wrote:
    There's an unofficial patch for this which allows you to specify that
    subscribers to specified other lists are also allowed to post, but
    I'm not sure if it has been brought up to compatibility for Mailman
    2.1.9, although I know it worked for Mailman 2.1.5. Search the
    archives and the Mailman patch page on SourceForge.
    Claims to work for 2.1.9 (listinclusion.patch).
    I know this doesn't quite do what you want, but if you moderate new
    members by default and you explicitly un-moderate actual subscribers
    to the list, then the result should be the same. I think.
    My concern with going that route is twofold:

    1. Stability over future upgrades
    2. I know the list-admins, and I do not trust all of them to get
    a two step process right every time.

    Would my solution work? What is the result if someone is both in the
    membeshp list and on the hold_these_nonmembers list?

    /Par

    --
    Par Leijonhufvud par at hunter-gatherer.org
    <dhd> even though I know what a 'one time pad' is, it still sounds like
    a feminine hygiene product.
  • Brad Knowles at Aug 10, 2007 at 5:09 pm ⇧

    On 8/10/07, Par Leijonhufvud wrote:

    My concern with going that route is twofold:

    1. Stability over future upgrades
    I believe that Mark has already said that this patch (or something
    very much like it) will be added to the official Mailman code in the
    near future, so I would think that the only problem might be that
    it's not incorporated in the very next version and that you might
    have to re-apply the patch when you upgrade.
    2. I know the list-admins, and I do not trust all of them to get
    a two step process right every time.
    Fair enough.
    Would my solution work?
    Let's go back to that:
    ... I can extract
    membership lists with the list_members command (using sort and uniq to
    fix any duplications) and then add them using config_list.
    As far as this goes, it does seem like it should work.
    Is this a sane plan? Will the world end if someone is both a member and
    is in the hold_these_nonmembers list,
    The world should not end, and Mailman should not crash.
    or can I use one single master
    list of "everyone"? Which takes precendence?
    You should be able to have a master list of "everyone", but I
    couldn't tell you which takes precedence. You'd need to hear from
    Mark, Tokio, or Barry on that.

    --
    Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org>, Consultant & Author
    LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>
    Slides from Invited Talks: <http://tinyurl.com/tj6q4>

    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  • Par Leijonhufvud at Aug 10, 2007 at 7:32 pm ⇧

    Brad Knowles [2007.08.10] wrote:
    I believe that Mark has already said that this patch (or something
    very much like it) will be added to the official Mailman code in the
    near future, so I would think that the only problem might be that
    it's not incorporated in the very next version and that you might
    have to re-apply the patch when you upgrade.
    If so that is an argument in favour (except that I like the freeBSD
    ports system...)
    ... I can extract
    membership lists with the list_members command (using sort and uniq to
    fix any duplications) and then add them using config_list.
    As far as this goes, it does seem like it should work.
    Good.
    Is this a sane plan? Will the world end if someone is both a member and
    is in the hold_these_nonmembers list,
    The world should not end, and Mailman should not crash.
    Good one at least the latter bit (I'll leave the question open on the
    first).
    or can I use one single master
    list of "everyone"? Which takes precendence?
    You should be able to have a master list of "everyone", but I
    couldn't tell you which takes precedence. You'd need to hear from
    Mark, Tokio, or Barry on that.
    I'll avait an authorative comment before implementing, or code around the
    problem. I culd of course run an experiment, but that would
    leave a nagging doubt that things *allways* will work in the same
    order.

    /Par

    --
    Par Leijonhufvud par at hunter-gatherer.org
    Prisons are built with stones of law, brothels with bricks of Religion.
    -- William Blake
  • Mark Sapiro at Aug 19, 2007 at 3:33 am ⇧

    Par Leijonhufvud wrote:
    Brad Knowles [2007.08.10] wrote:
    You should be able to have a master list of "everyone", but I
    couldn't tell you which takes precedence. You'd need to hear from
    Mark, Tokio, or Barry on that.
    I'll avait an authorative comment before implementing, or code around the
    problem. I culd of course run an experiment, but that would
    leave a nagging doubt that things *allways* will work in the same
    order.

    Membership tests are applied first, i.e. is the sender a list member, if
    so, is she moderated and if so, what is member_moderation_action?

    The non_member tests are only applied if the sender is not a member.
    They are applied in the following order:

    accept_these_nonmembers
    hold_these_nonmembers
    reject_these_nonmembers
    discard_these_nonmembers
    generic_nonmember_action

    The first match applies.

    - --
    Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Par Leijonhufvud at Aug 19, 2007 at 5:39 pm ⇧

    Mark Sapiro [2007.08.19] wrote:
    Membership tests are applied first, i.e. is the sender a list member, if
    so, is she moderated and if so, what is member_moderation_action?

    The non_member tests are only applied if the sender is not a member.
    They are applied in the following order:

    accept_these_nonmembers
    hold_these_nonmembers
    reject_these_nonmembers
    discard_these_nonmembers
    generic_nonmember_action

    The first match applies.
    Great. I was assuming that it was done in a logical order and fashion,
    but the functional paranoia wanted it verified first.

    Thanks!

    /Par

    --
    Par Leijonhufvud par at hunter-gatherer.org
    [Pern books] They're women's rape-fantasy SF, not really the kind of story
    that indulges in pragmatic wankery.
    -- Kurt Busiek

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupmailman-users @
categoriespython
postedAug 9, '07 at 6:30p
activeAug 19, '07 at 5:39p
posts7
users3
websitelist.org

3 users in discussion

Par Leijonhufvud: 4 posts Brad Knowles: 2 posts Mark Sapiro: 1 post

Content

People

Support

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase