Re: [tdf-discuss] Mail List issues

On 3/9/11 11:07 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Mailman has not been chosen mainly out of two reasons:
>
> 1. Moderation via e-mail is not comfortable. It especially requires 
> one password shared among all moderators, which is inconvenient.
>
> 2. Although virtual domains are supported, the list name can only 
> exist once per Mailman installation. That means, 
> discuss@de.libreoffice.org and discuss@it.libreoffice.org could not 
> exist. It rather would have to be de-discuss@de.libreoffice.org and 
> it-discuss@it.libreoffice.org. In addition, managing virtual domain 
> names is a bit more complicated in Mailman compared to mlmmj.
>
> I agree that Mailman provides a lot of other great features that would 
> come in handy and would have saved us a lot of time, but the above two 
> limitations are real tough to deal with.
>
> I also agree that mlmmj has some drawbacks, but basically, it does it 
> job very well. To my understanding, many complaints would have either 
> occured with other lists as well -- like some people want attachments, 
> others don't, the next ones love forums, others don't -- and other 
> things are not bugs in mlmmj itself. For some configurations, Google 
> Mail seems to omit the "+" in the addresses, however, the + is 
> supported by RFC, so it's clearly a bug at Google that affects us. 
> Other people complained about not being able to receive e-mail -- most 
> of the time, it has been a few French providers blocking the mails 
> without any reason, and, again, in violation of the RFC, not even 
> answering to e-mails when the postmaster is mailed. Features like 
> "mark moderated messages" are really desirable, but they are not 
> supported by any other mailing list system, IIRC, so we would have to 
> implement that ourselves anyways.
>
> And, what I also see, people simply cannot read. They send email to 
> the help alias, but do not understand what to do. That would have 
> occured with Mailman as well, and I guess people would have even be 
> more confused by the web interface and the password they need.
>
> There are a few drawbacks that will be solved with a newer mlmmj 
> release we plan to roll out soon, like the cut-off moderation messages.
>
> We also plan to provide an administrative interface, where list owners 
> can edit some settings and (un)subscribe people. I agree that a lack 
> of this is really ugly. However, it needs time and resources, so if 
> anyone volunteers to code, let us know. :-)
>
> NoOp wrote on 2011-03-09 04.05:
>
> > 1. Why are unsubscribed posts even allowed? It would seem that folks
> > would have learned from the OOo list history.
>
> This is an endless discussion. Ask five people what they prefer, and 
> you get seven replies. I am fine with both, but IMHO, the majority of 
> list moderators wanted unsubscribed posts to be possible.
>
> > 2. Why are multiple moderators necessary? If it's to get some poor soul
> > to sort&  reject spam, then there are automated tools to do that 
> > instead.
>
> Most spam is filtered out already. There are not multiple moderators 
> necessary, it's just convenient. Technically, one is enough.
>
> > 3. Why are we getting posts on the user&  other lists using
> > Mlmmj — Mailing List Management Made Joyful:
> > http://mlmmj.org/
> > that the user can't unsubscribe, or can't set nomail?
>
> Might be related to the Google problem. In addition, Google archives 
> one's own e-mails without putting them into the inbox first, which 
> confuses some more poeple.
>
> > 4. Why is it necesary to send an email for unsubscribe instructions?
>
> That's indeed a limitation for mlmmj -- unsubscription for the digest 
> version of the lists are different than to those for the non-digest. I 
> see no reason for a digest, but lots of users demanded it, so enabled 
> it. It usually leads to broken threads, but then, you can't make 
> everyone happy... :-)
>
> > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@libreoffice.org
> > etc at all? Hello... is this some type of secret handshake that takes
> > place to get off of the users list?
>
> No. But send an e-mail and *READ*. It's explained in clear words, I 
> guess. :-)
>
>
> > What seems to be the problem with simply posting the unsubscribe
> > information on the website and at the bottom of each post? Such as:
> > ====
> > To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to
> > discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
>
> That does not work for digests. I received a lot of mails from digest 
> users unable to unsubscribe.
>
> > So why the requirement to send and ask for help? Is it because Mlmmj —
> > Mailing List Management Made Joyful may not be so resilient/secure
> > overall? Does the<listname>+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org not work
> > any longer?
>
> It does, but not for digests. Indeed, this *is* a serious drawback 
> that annoys me, but then, I don't have the resources nor the knowledge 
> to fix it. :/
>
> Florian
Can mailman integrate with spamassassin? if it can why not route the 
lists through a spamassassin? My reasoning for this is that we will 
eliminate list moderation and free up moderators for other things.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***