Subject: Re: On allowing non-subscribed people following our WGs to post

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:40:30 -0300

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Perhaps we could allow people to subscribe to a mailing list, but choose
> "no email delivery" as an option..? (e.g. instead of a yes/no choice for
> the digest option can mailman be upgraded to support all email / digest
> / none or something like that?)
>

This is what I thought as well.  And at least in APPSAWG, I used to get
this quite frequently from different addresses for people that just wanted
to participate in a single thread; since we had a lot of threads going,
moderation sometimes got kind of busy.

I think if you want to participate in a list, you should subscribe to the
list (and set the "no mail" flag if you want to read via IMAP remotely).
That's what the list is for.  I don't understand why WG chairs should have
to get involved in the first place.

For N subscribers doing this, either each of them has to do one thing, or I
have to do N things.  Bleah.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:42:18 -0300

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> In all the lists I’ve ever managed, it’s never been particularly onerous
> to add people to the whitelist for posting — it’s one extra click in the
> mailman interface (and would have saved the WG chair from having to free
> your second message from the queue — much more overhead, IMO).
>

As a list owner, for something that shouldn't need moderation (i.e., a post
from a participant), I feel I shouldn't have to go to the mailman interface
at all.

-MSK

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:40:26 +0100

> On 13 Apr 2016, at 00:42, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Leslie Daigle <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> In all the lists I’ve ever managed, it’s never been particularly onerous to add people to the whitelist for posting — it’s one extra click in the mailman interface (and would have saved the WG chair from having to free your second message from the queue — much more overhead, IMO).
> 
> As a list owner, for something that shouldn't need moderation (i.e., a post from a participant), I feel I shouldn't have to go to the mailman interface at all.

I don’t see it as a big issue - at most one or two visits to the moderation page a month to whitelist someone who’s used a different email address. I see even less spam that needs to be rejected.

Tim

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:14:10 -0400

I’m with Tim, it’s down in the noise compared to the other things I do as a
WG chair.

Cheers,
Andy

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Tim Chown <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As a list owner, for something that shouldn't need moderation (i.e., a
> post from a participant), I feel I shouldn't have to go to the mailman
> interface at all.
>
>
> I don’t see it as a big issue - at most one or two visits to the
> moderation page a month to whitelist someone who’s used a different email
> address. I see even less spam that needs to be rejected.
>
> Tim
>