From: Simon Wistow Date: 09:46 on 04 May 2005 Subject: mailman's rejection policies I have an announce list, right. And I only ever want a few authorized people to be allowed to post to it. So why do I need to rummage through the grease trap of held posts deleting all of them in turn. I *know* I don't want them. Why can't I just tell you to reject them outright. WHY? Oh, and for that matter - why no "delete all" Oh, and whilst in full flow - you put the headers and body of every message in a form element. And all form elements are in the same form. And the message queue, if we've had a particulalry viscious spam attack, can be over a hundred messages long. Spam and viruses can have rather large message bodies. IT'S NOT A PARTICULARLY HARD STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION TO SEE THAT SUBMITTING THE FULL TEXT OF A HUNDRED VIRUSES AND HTML SPAMS VIA POST IS GOING TO PUT QUITE A LOAD ON THE SERVER. GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. Somebody should write a mailing list manager in Perl.
From: Anton Berezin
Date: 11:27 on 04 May 2005
Subject: Re: mailman's rejection policies
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:46:21AM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> Oh, and for that matter - why no "delete all"
I have a lot of mailman-related hates here, but to be fair, there _is_ a
delete all thingy:
Submit All Data
[ ] Discard all messages marked Defer
\Anton.
From: Simon Wistow Date: 11:34 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: mailman's rejection policies On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:27:06PM +0200, Anton Berezin said: > I have a lot of mailman-related hates here, but to be fair, there _is_ a > delete all thingy: > > Submit All Data > [ ] Discard all messages marked Defer Presumably I'm going to need to upgrade from version 2.0.11 for that. So, slightly mdoifed hate - it took 3 years to get from 1.0rc1 (4th of May, 1999) to 2.0.11 (20th of May 2002) and it still didn't have 'delete all'?
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 11:47 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: mailman's rejection policies Come on. Surely that's not the only way you hate Mailman?
From: Yoz Grahame Date: 13:55 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: mailman's rejection policies On 5/4/05, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Come on. Surely that's not the only way you hate Mailman? Let's hear it for pinch-punch-first-of-the-month, the grand old tradition where Mailman servers all over the world unite to utterly piss off their users in unison twelve times a year. "HELLO! WE'RE ALL TICKETY-BOO! HOW'RE YOU?" I have never, ever understood the point of using my main notification system purely to notify me that I both have been and will continue to be receiving notifications in that notification system. AGAIN. -- Yoz
From: Michael G Schwern Date: 20:26 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: mailman's rejection policies On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:55:04PM +0100, Yoz Grahame wrote: > Let's hear it for pinch-punch-first-of-the-month, the grand old > tradition where Mailman servers all over the world unite to utterly > piss off their users in unison twelve times a year. "HELLO! WE'RE ALL > TICKETY-BOO! HOW'RE YOU?" > > I have never, ever understood the point of using my main notification > system purely to notify me that I both have been and will continue to > be receiving notifications in that notification system. AGAIN. Don't forget sending all your passwords in the clear!
From: Darrell Fuhriman Date: 17:46 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: mailman's rejection policies > Let's hear it for pinch-punch-first-of-the-month, the grand old > tradition where Mailman servers all over the world unite to utterly > piss off their users in unison twelve times a year. "HELLO! WE'RE ALL > TICKETY-BOO! HOW'RE YOU?" They're pulling that in the next version -- whenever that happens. Also, not only can you select "discard all message marked defer," Under Privacy Options->Sender Filters you can set "Action to take for postings from non-members for which no explicit action is defined" to "reject" as well as auto-reject list member's posts if they aren't excplicitly permitted. So, while the hate is valid, it's hating an old version of the software. Darrell
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 18:47 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: mailman's rejection policies > So, while the hate is valid, it's hating an old version of the > software. So I can let go of Windows Me?
From: Anton Berezin Date: 20:37 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: mailman's rejection policies On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:46:45AM -0700, Darrell Fuhriman wrote: > Also, not only can you select "discard all message marked defer," > Under Privacy Options->Sender Filters you can set "Action to take > for postings from non-members for which no explicit action is > defined" to "reject" as well as auto-reject list member's posts > if they aren't excplicitly permitted. And the only remaining hate (well, NOT) is the bunch of messages about those rejections going into list admin's mailbox. =Anton.
From: Darrell Fuhriman Date: 21:17 on 04 May 2005 Subject: Re: mailman's rejection policies > And the only remaining hate (well, NOT) is the bunch of messages about > those rejections going into list admin's mailbox. I don't get any. I can't remember where the setting for that is, though. I do autoreject subscribers for posting in just html or for too large of messages. Not sure if the moderation rejects happen differently. Darrell
Generated at 10:27 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi