Re: [q-lang-users] Proposed ML policy change

[Tim H. <q...@st...>]

Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> writes:

> Tim Haynes wrote:
>> Generally OK by me as long as it picks up the correct envelope/From/Sender
>> both times.
>
> Hi Tim, do you refer to the reply address? It's set up now so that
> replies go to the list instead of the poster (my personal preference, but
> we can change that if enough people want to have it in a different way).

I didn't, but having it to the list is fine by me - I can't abide when a
wide-reply tries to send things only to the individual sender or their
designated reply-to field.

I was thinking that sometimes my sender leaks out rather than the From:
header. 

> If anyone has other specific suggestions as to how to set up mailman for
> this list, please let us know. I must confess that I'm anything but a
> mailman expert, so I'm open to suggestions, but we should reach some kind
> of consensus which makes everyone on this list (mostly) happy.

If you make it so that stuff from subscribers goes through straight away,
but stuff from others requries moderation, that might be a reasonable
half-way house. I do that for some of ork's lists (mostly -announce type);
you could make it a periodic batch job to tidy up / add senders to an
"allow" list even though they're not subscribed / approve cross-posts.

~Tim
-- 
<http://spodzone.org.uk/>