FAQ
Does anyone know a way to block a reply to all? I would like my users to not be able to reply to all to post a message. If the want to post a message, they should post it not just reply to a previous message.

________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

Search Discussions

  • Ralf Hildebrandt at Apr 30, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    * Schwartz, Robert - IS <Robert.Schwartz at itt.com>:

    Does anyone know a way to block a reply to all? I would like my users
    to not be able to reply to all to post a message. If the want to post
    a message, they should post it not just reply to a previous message.
    Set the reply-to: to something wrong :)

    --
    Ralf Hildebrandt
    Gesch?ftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
    Charit? - Universit?tsmedizin Berlin
    Campus Benjamin Franklin
    Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
    Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
    ralf.hildebrandt at charite.de | http://www.charite.de
  • Grant Taylor at Apr 30, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    On 04/30/10 09:23, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
    Set the reply-to: to something wrong :)
    That will not work.

    Reply-to-All will reply to the incorrect Reply-To as well as all other
    senders.

    There is also a possibility that a spam filter will detect that the
    Reply-To is invalid and will consider the message spam.

    Reply-to-All is an end user application function that Mailman its self
    has no control over.

    A better question would be where does the OP want replies to go? Make
    Reply-To reflect that location.



    Grant. . . .
  • Carl Zwanzig at Apr 30, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    On 4/30/2010 7:23 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
    * Schwartz, Robert - IS<Robert.Schwartz at itt.com>:
    Does anyone know a way to block a reply to all? I would like my users
    to not be able to reply to all to post a message. If the want to post
    a message, they should post it not just reply to a previous message.
    Set the reply-to: to something wrong :)
    Kinda defeats the purpose of replying at all.

    Robert-
    Why?? Most mailing lists are a conversation (of sorts). You say one thing
    and I say something relevant to that (like this). Almost all messaging
    happens like that (email, web fora, chat systems, SMS, etc). Do you want to
    prevent two-way conversation, force every message to me a "new" message, or
    what?

    Also, reply-all is a MUA function, not an MTA function, so changing the
    behavior of Mailman is kind of a band-aid solution.

    (That aside, you could look at the subject for a "Re:" or similar tag, but
    that's not reliable. You could look for mailman's X-BeenThere or
    X-Mailman-Version headers, which would be better... OTOH, these will prevent
    -all- replies that go to the list, not just reply-all.)

    z!
  • Ralf Hildebrandt at Apr 30, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    * Carl Zwanzig <cpz at tuunq.com>:
    On 4/30/2010 7:23 AM, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
    * Schwartz, Robert - IS<Robert.Schwartz at itt.com>:
    Does anyone know a way to block a reply to all? I would like my users
    to not be able to reply to all to post a message. If the want to post
    a message, they should post it not just reply to a previous message.
    Set the reply-to: to something wrong :)
    Kinda defeats the purpose of replying at all.
    It was not my idea!

    --
    Ralf Hildebrandt
    Gesch?ftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
    Charit? - Universit?tsmedizin Berlin
    Campus Benjamin Franklin
    Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
    Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
    ralf.hildebrandt at charite.de | http://www.charite.de
  • Grant Taylor at Apr 30, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    On 04/29/10 13:26, Schwartz, Robert - IS wrote:
    Does anyone know a way to block a reply to all?
    To directly answer your question (and for the benefit of others
    searching the archives) I think the best that you will be able to do is
    to filter messages based on the existence of the standard reply headers
    ("References:" and "In-Reply-To:") and reject the message(s).



    Grant. . . .
  • Schwartz, Robert - IS at Apr 30, 2010 at 4:36 pm
    Grant suggested:

    To directly answer your question (and for the benefit of others searching the archives) I think the best that you will be able to do is to filter messages based on the existence of the standard reply headers ("References:" and "In-Reply-To:") and reject the message(s).

    Does anyone know how to do this:
    Where would you setup this filter? I can't find it in the General Options or Content Filtering.

    Robert


    ________________________________
    This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
    Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
  • Mark Sapiro at May 1, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Schwartz, Robert - IS wrote:
    Grant suggested:

    To directly answer your question (and for the benefit of others searching the archives) I think the best that you will be able to do is to filter messages based on the existence of the standard reply headers ("References:" and "In-Reply-To:") and reject the message(s).

    Does anyone know how to do this:
    Where would you setup this filter? I can't find it in the General Options or Content Filtering.

    It's Privacy options... -> Spam filters -> header_filter_rules

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Terri Oda at Apr 30, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    Schwartz, Robert - IS wrote:
    Does anyone know a way to block a reply to all? I would like my users to not be able to reply to all to post a message. If the want to post a message, they should post it not just reply to a previous message.
    As others have said, I'm not sure this is a good idea, unless your goal
    is to annoy your users and impede communication. But one thing that
    would have the side-effect of blocking a reply-to-all is changing the
    list settings so that the list only accepts mails if there is exactly
    one recipient.

    You can do this under Privacy Options -> Recipient Filters
    Set "Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting." to 1

    Then anyone hitting reply-to-all will get a message saying that their
    message is held because there are too many recipients, since any
    reply-to-all will include both the sender address and the list address.

    Terri
  • Schwartz, Robert - IS at Apr 30, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    That didn't work because the first message sent will go to yourself and the mailing list which will be blocked. If you tell it not to send it to yourself, the first message will send. If you try to reply to all to this message it will also be sent because the reply to will only have the member list.

    Robert P. Schwartz
    CAS, Inc.
    A wholly owned subsidiary of ITT Corporation
    100 Quality Circle
    Huntsville, AL 35806

    Phone: 256.922.4203
    Fax: 256.922.4243

    E-mail: robert.schwartz at itt.com


    -----Original Message-----
    From: mailman-users-bounces+robert.schwartz=itt.com at python.org [mailto:mailman-users-bounces+robert.schwartz=itt.com at python.org] On Behalf Of Terri Oda
    Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:03 PM
    To: mailman-users at python.org
    Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Block reply to all

    Schwartz, Robert - IS wrote:
    Does anyone know a way to block a reply to all? I would like my users to not be able to reply to all to post a message. If the want to post a message, they should post it not just reply to a previous message.
    As others have said, I'm not sure this is a good idea, unless your goal
    is to annoy your users and impede communication. But one thing that
    would have the side-effect of blocking a reply-to-all is changing the
    list settings so that the list only accepts mails if there is exactly
    one recipient.

    You can do this under Privacy Options -> Recipient Filters
    Set "Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting." to 1

    Then anyone hitting reply-to-all will get a message saying that their
    message is held because there are too many recipients, since any
    reply-to-all will include both the sender address and the list address.

    Terri

    ------------------------------------------------------
    Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
    Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
    Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
    Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
    Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/robert.schwartz%40itt.com

    This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
    Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
  • Schwartz, Robert - IS at Apr 30, 2010 at 6:27 pm
    Maybe I can put a message at the top of every mail being send "Do not do a reply all". How do you do this?

    Robert P. Schwartz



    Schwartz, Robert - IS wrote:
    Does anyone know a way to block a reply to all? I would like my users to not be able to reply to all to post a message. If the want to post a message, they should post it not just reply to a previous message.
    As others have said, I'm not sure this is a good idea, unless your goal
    is to annoy your users and impede communication. But one thing that
    would have the side-effect of blocking a reply-to-all is changing the
    list settings so that the list only accepts mails if there is exactly
    one recipient.

    You can do this under Privacy Options -> Recipient Filters
    Set "Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting." to 1

    Then anyone hitting reply-to-all will get a message saying that their
    message is held because there are too many recipients, since any
    reply-to-all will include both the sender address and the list address.

    Terri

    ------------------------------------------------------
    Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
    Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
    Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
    Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
    Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/robert.schwartz%40itt.com

    This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
    Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
  • Mark Sapiro at May 1, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Schwartz, Robert - IS wrote:
    Maybe I can put a message at the top of every mail being send "Do not do a reply all". How do you do this?

    The list admin interface Non-digest options -> msg_header

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Robert P. Schwartz at May 1, 2010 at 8:53 pm
    I tried this an I'm not getting any header. I tried it for non-digest
    options and digest options.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: mailman-users-bounces+rpschwar=knology.net at python.org
    [mailto:mailman-users-bounces+rpschwar=knology.net at python.org] On Behalf Of
    Mark Sapiro
    Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:06 PM
    To: Schwartz, Robert - IS; Terri Oda; mailman-users at python.org
    Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Block reply to all

    Schwartz, Robert - IS wrote:
    Maybe I can put a message at the top of every mail being send "Do not do a
    reply all". How do you do this?


    The list admin interface Non-digest options -> msg_header

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

    ------------------------------------------------------
    Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
    Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
    Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
    Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
    Unsubscribe:
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/rpschwar%40knology.net

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2846 - Release Date: 04/30/10
    13:27:00
  • Mark Sapiro at May 1, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    Robert P. Schwartz wrote:
    I tried this an I'm not getting any header. I tried it for non-digest
    options and digest options.

    If you put text in msg_header and saved that change and then sent a
    post to that list and the post as received from the list didn't
    contain the header text, it may be because the post to the list was
    multipart or HTML and the header was added as a separate MIME part
    which your mail client doesn't display.

    See the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/84A9> for more on this.

    If the header is not added in any form at all, I cannot explain why. Do
    messages from your lists contain the default (or other) msg_footer?

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Schwartz, Robert - IS at May 1, 2010 at 9:27 pm
    That seems to be the issue. When I looked at the email from my work email I saw the header text that was added, but my message was added as an attachment. I like the header text to be added and the message not to appear as an attachment. If there is no way to do this, I'll just live with it.

    Robert P. Schwartz
    CAS, Inc.
    A wholly owned subsidiary of ITT Corporation
    100 Quality Circle
    Huntsville, AL 35806

    Phone: 256.922.4203
    Fax: 256.922.4243

    E-mail: robert.schwartz at itt.com


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mark Sapiro [mailto:mark at msapiro.net]
    Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 4:23 PM
    To: rpschwar at knology.net; Schwartz, Robert - IS; 'Terri Oda'; mailman-users at python.org
    Subject: RE: [Mailman-Users] Block reply to all

    Robert P. Schwartz wrote:
    I tried this an I'm not getting any header. I tried it for non-digest
    options and digest options.

    If you put text in msg_header and saved that change and then sent a
    post to that list and the post as received from the list didn't
    contain the header text, it may be because the post to the list was
    multipart or HTML and the header was added as a separate MIME part
    which your mail client doesn't display.

    See the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/84A9> for more on this.

    If the header is not added in any form at all, I cannot explain why. Do
    messages from your lists contain the default (or other) msg_footer?

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan


    This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
    Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
  • Mark Sapiro at May 1, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    On 5/1/2010 2:27 PM, Schwartz, Robert - IS wrote:
    That seems to be the issue. When I looked at the email from my work
    email I saw the header text that was added, but my message was added
    as an attachment. I like the header text to be added and the message
    not to appear as an attachment. If there is no way to do this, I'll
    just live with it.

    As it says in the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/84A9> (option 2), if
    the incoming post is plain text only or if the list's content filtering
    is set to remove all non-plain text parts, the msg_header text will be
    prepended to the plain text message body. Otherwise the msg_header text
    will be added as a separate MIME part (attachment).

    I may seem obtuse about this, but it would help me to help you if you
    explained in terms of simple scenarios what it is you want.

    For example, user x sends a post to list y. user z receives the post
    from the list.

    a) I want user z to only be able to reply to user x and otherwise to be
    required to send a new, original, non-reply message to the list, or
    b) I want user z to be able to reply to user x only or to the list only,
    but not to both, or
    c) I want user z to be able to reply only to the list and not directly
    to user x at all.

    Those are only examples, but I would like to know what you would like to
    have happen.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Barry Finkel at Apr 30, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    You can do this under Privacy Options -> Recipient Filters
    Set "Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting." to 1

    Then anyone hitting reply-to-all will get a message saying that their
    message is held because there are too many recipients, since any
    reply-to-all will include both the sender address and the list address.
    But if someome sends mail to the list, and has an extra recipient
    in the "To:" or "Cc:", the mail will also be held.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Barry S. Finkel
    Computing and Information Systems Division
    Argonne National Laboratory Phone: +1 (630) 252-7277
    9700 South Cass Avenue Facsimile:+1 (630) 252-4601
    Building 240, Room 5.B.8 Internet: BSFinkel at anl.gov
    Argonne, IL 60439-4828 IBMMAIL: I1004994
  • Mark Sapiro at May 2, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    On 5/2/2010 12:10 PM, rpschwar at knology.net wrote:
    This is what I'm trying to do. User x sends a post to listy. User z
    receives the post from the list.

    I want user Z only to be able to reply to user x and otherwise to be
    required to send a new, origional, not-preply message to the list.

    Thanks for the explanation. The short answer is you can't remove the
    list posting address from all the headers. Normally it will be in the
    To: header or Cc: header and 'reply-all' will include the list. If the
    personalization options are available to you, you can set the list(s) to
    Full Personalization which will replace the To: header with one that is
    To: the recipient of the message, but this will not help because Mailman
    will in this case add a Cc: to the list posting address in order to
    facilitate including the list in replies.

    Mailman works this way because it is designed mainly for discussion
    lists where people carry out a multi-way conversation on the list.

    Thus, the only thing you can do is as has been suggested, apply
    header_filter_rules to not accept posts that contain In-Reply-To: and/or
    References: headers, or use max_num_recipients = 2 to hold all posts
    with more than one recipient.

    To this latter suggestion, you replied:
    That didn't work because the first message sent will go to yourself
    and the mailing list which will be blocked. If you tell it not to send
    it to yourself, the first message will send. If you try to reply to all
    to this message it will also be sent because the reply to will only have
    the member list.

    This reply raises other questions. The first sentence seems to indicate
    you want to send to the list with Cc: to yourself, and yes, such a post
    would be held as it would have 2 recipients. However, the last sentence
    indicates you are concerned about people replying-all to their own
    posts. Is this a real concern, or is it just something you encountered
    in testing with replying to your own post? I.e., normally, a reply-all
    would include the list and the poster and would be held for 2
    recipients. Only in the case where you are replying-all to your own post
    and not editing the recipients, would the post have only one recipient.

    Of course with a recipient limit, the user could still do a reply-all
    and then remove all but the list address from the addressees before
    sending, and this reply would go to the list if you were only checking
    the number of recipients, so it seems if you want to block all
    non-original messages, header_filter_rules would be the way to go.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Geoff Shang at May 2, 2010 at 9:50 pm
    Hi,

    Frankly, I think the best approach would be just to moderate the list. If
    people realise that follow-ups aren't going to get posted, they'll stop
    sending them.

    Geoff.
  • Grant Taylor at May 2, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    Geoff Shang wrote:
    Frankly, I think the best approach would be just to moderate the list.
    If people realise that follow-ups aren't going to get posted, they'll
    stop sending them.
    *chuckle*

    From my experience, you over estimate some of the user base that I have
    had the pleasure of supporting. ;-)



    Grant. . . .
  • Rpschwar at May 3, 2010 at 12:35 am
    Let me give further explanation of why I need this. The site I support is a community band. When there is an email set to
    everyone from the director about something, we do not want each person to reply to all. They should only be replying back
    to the person who sent the email (the director). That is why we want to limit the reply to all.

    Robert
    On Sun 02/05/10 7:01 PM , Grant Taylor gtaylor at riverviewtech.net sent:
    Geoff Shang wrote:
    Frankly, I think the best approach would be just to
    moderate the list. > If people realise that follow-ups aren't going to
    get posted, they'll > stop sending them.

    *chuckle*

    From my experience, you over estimate some of the user base that I have
    had the pleasure of supporting. ;-)



    Grant. . . .
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Mailman-Users mailing list Mail
    man-Users at python.orghttp://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-usersMailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3Security
    Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/Unsubscribe:
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/rpschwar%4
    0knology.net
  • Shop at " Just Brits " at May 3, 2010 at 2:46 am
    I am sure [most Mark -:)] know that I AM a huge fan & supporter
    of MM even tho I am stuck with the cPanel version.

    I have been reading all the mails on this subject with a bunch of
    questions swirling around my teeny brain -:) !!

    << Let me give further explanation of why I need this. The site I
    support is a community band. When there is an email set to everyone from
    the director about something, we do not want each person to reply to
    all. They should only be replying back to the person who sent the email
    (the director). That is why we want to limit the reply to all. >>

    So my only remaining question is "Why a MM List at all. ?" ??

    Simply have the Director set-up a 'Group' in his eMail Client,
    SEND to the 'Group' and then there would ONLY be ONE
    person anyone in the 'Group' could "Reply-to:" [or even
    "Reply-all:" which would only yield the Director] ?!?!?

    Even an 'Announcement Only' type List does NOT make sense
    to me ?!?!?!

    Ed
    Please visit MY site at:
    www.justbrits.com
  • Stephen J. Turnbull at May 3, 2010 at 5:44 am
    "Shop at \" Just Brits \"" writes:
    So my only remaining question is "Why a MM List at all. ?" ??
    So that members can update their own addresses and other information
    (eg, turn delivery off when on vacation). The MUA group solution
    requires that the director update that information.

    Also, when we move to MM3, a member database with lots of other
    interesting information (eg, members' instruments, members with
    instruments to loan, members who can play instruments they don't
    currently own) could be attached in lieu of the rather impoverished
    database we use now.
  • Mark Sapiro at May 3, 2010 at 3:07 am

    rpschwar at knology.net wrote:
    Let me give further explanation of why I need this. The site I support is a community band. When there is an email set to
    everyone from the director about something, we do not want each person to reply to all. They should only be replying back
    to the person who sent the email (the director). That is why we want to limit the reply to all.

    See the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/3YA9> on how to set up this kind
    of list.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Stephen J. Turnbull at May 3, 2010 at 4:30 am
    rpschwar at knology.net writes:
    Let me give further explanation of why I need this. The site I
    support is a community band. When there is an email set to
    everyone from the director about something, we do not want each
    person to reply to all. They should only be replying back to the
    person who sent the email (the director). That is why we want to
    limit the reply to all.
    The obvious solution is to have a dedicated announce list for the
    director's use for such announcements. Set the reply-to to the
    director's preferred mail address for receiving such responses. Set
    member post to no. Set the allowed posters to the director's
    addresses, plus the addresses of any other "responsible parties" who
    should be allowed to post (vice director, listmaster relaying a phone
    message from the director, etc). Finally, set a privacy rule to
    discard (possibly reject) unauthorized posts. There's more info in
    the FAQ, a search for "announcement list" should pull it up. Also,
    "clone list" (since you'll want a convenient way to copy the
    membership list).

    Rationale: everything should be obvious except the use of a separate
    list, and the discard vs reject issue. Using a separate list allows
    you to have different rules for announcements (band member polls, I
    guess?) and for discussion. Since only the director needs to post to
    it, only he/she needs to learn to use it, and it shouldn't be too hard
    to learn if use is at all frequent. Everybody else only really needs
    to know the discussion list posting address. The biggest cost is that
    somebody needs to make sure that every new member is on both lists.
    (Yes, this is stupid, and it will be fixed in Mailman 3, but we're not
    there yet. It also has the advantage that people who don't want to
    receive general discussion can tune out without losing the important
    announcements from the director.)

    "Discard" means "without notifying the sender". "Reject" means with
    notification. For the expected reply, there are three cases:

    1. The respondent sends only to the director: the list filter is not
    involved at all. No problem with any list settings! :-)
    2. The respondent does reply-to-all: the personal copy to the
    director is sent and received, the copy to the list filtered.
    With discard, the director is informed and the respondent is not
    spammed with a reject notice. This is what you want. With
    reject, the respondent is spammed, may try again, and worse, may
    contact you for help. Yucky.
    3. The respondent removes the director's address and sends only to
    the list. With "discard", they never know; with "reject", they
    are informed of their mistake. However, this is perverse
    behavior. It seems unlikely to be a frequent problem, since it
    requires both doing reply-to-all and deliberately removing the
    director's address, which will *always* be one of the addresses.

    Unexpected replies are probably of the form "it's a band list, if I
    reply to it, it will go to the band". I can't really call this
    "perverse", just, ah, "uneducated". I suggest calling the list "XYZ
    Band Director Announcement", and even if people accidentally send to
    it thinking it's the discussion list, they'll be a little sheepish
    about it, which will reduce the likelihood of complaints.

    When first introducing the system, you might consider "hold" instead
    of "discard"; this would allow you to recover inadvertant real posts,
    at the cost of having to explicitly discard a possibly large number of
    reply-to-alls. After a reasonable educational period (you'd have to
    decide that based on the band members), switch to discard. Keep stats
    on how many reply-to-alls are received vs. inadvertant real posts;
    that will convince any reasonable person that the educational period
    is really a burden on the list moderator, and should be kept short.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupmailman-users @
categoriespython
postedApr 29, '10 at 6:26p
activeMay 3, '10 at 5:44a
posts25
users11
websitelist.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase