In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 11:38:36AM -0500, Grant Edwards wrote: >> Colin Watson wrote: >> > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 11:13:51AM -0500, Grant Edwards wrote: >> >> This sounds like the exact same mechanism used by moderated >> >> newsgroups, but postings to muc.l.d.u don't seem to get mailed >> >> to the list. Why not set up muc.l.d.u as a moderated group >> >> with postings going to the mailing list? >> > >> > Bidirectional mail<->news gatewaying is very delicate - get it wrong and >> > you'll have mail loops from hell. It's often simpler just to avoid the >> > issue. >> >> Right. That's why I'm not suggesting a bi-directional gateway >> (not in the traditional sense of the word). >> >> I'm suggesting a moderated group where postings that would >> normally go to the "moderator" directly to the mailing list. >> The gateway is still unidirectional: mail->news. > > Yup, that's how everybody else does bidirectional gateways too.
Really? The other group I read that has an e-mail gateway doesn't seem to be set up that way. I (and anybody else) can post directly to the group. There are no "Approved:" headers. AFAICT, it is not a moderated group. However they set up the news<->email gateway, it does not look like it uses the mechanism I described. > It's bidirectional because the other half of the gateway is > the system that mails posts to the moderation address. > > It's fine if you get it right and it's well-maintained - just pointing > out that the standard loop problem is probably why the newsadmin > responsible for the gateway hasn't set it up. -- Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
