on Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:35:59PM -0500, Doug Loss (drloss@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 16:18 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:53:44PM -0800, Karsten M. Self (kmself@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > NB: Something seems to be rather markedly borked with your mail client
> > > as it's breaking headers. This mail couldn't be filtered correctly to
> > > the mailing list.
> >
> > ...or the archives, FWIW. Fix your config:
> >
> > http://archives.seul.org/schoolforge/discuss/Mar-2005/threads.html
> >
> >
> > Peace.
> >
> Here's the real problem. To minimize spam getting onto this mailing
> list, majordomo only accepts posts from subscribed addresses. I get all
> the bounces in my mailbox (and believe me, there are *hundreds* of
> bounces). I look at each and every one. The vast majority are throw-
> aways, but every once in a while I get a legitimate message for the list
> from a member trying to post from a non-subscribed address. Those I
> manually approve and forward to the list. Of those, I occasionally
> munge the header when my MUA has broken a header directive into multiple
> lines and I don't notice it. That's what happened here.
OK, that fits. Dean's had other MUA wierdness in the past, I assumed
continuation of same.
> The solution? Only post from the address you used to subscribe to the
> mailing list.
Quite.
My nazi-listmanager-from-hell response is to reject such posts and point
the miscreant at the subscriber page. The alternative of subscribing
the person seems to lead to slightly greater levels of friction. The
moreso if I don't set the additional address 'nomail'.
> Or change your subscribed addy to be the one you post from.
My advice: subscribe all your likely addresses, set all but one to
'nomail' if the list supports this.
> If you're not sure if this applies to you, I'll be happy to add an
> administrative line to each post from a non-subscribed addy that I
> forward, so the posters can know it applies to them. But I hesitate
> to do that without the list's agreement because of the potential
> embarrassment it could create.
There _are_ positive uses for embarassement. I'm a prime example ;-)
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
The Debian developers raised the obvious, predictable objection to
the inclusion of this utility.
- LWN, on Debian's "Hot Babe" problem: http://lwn.net/Articles/113644/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature