Philip you have also mlmmj for moderation as well for those that dont sign up to the lists. Libreoffice use it and you moderate it via email which i find very handy.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Philip Colmer <philip.col...@linaro.org>wrote: > Hi Grant > > It looked like there wasn't enough interest in testing Google Groups for > patches so that idea pretty much got abandoned. > > I'm about to go on holiday for a few weeks but I've set myself a task on > ZenDesk (our ticketing system) to build a new Mailman server when I return; > I'll integrate SpamAssassin into that and we'll run some tests on it. From > some of the things I've read, it should be fairly straightforward to then > use SpamAssassin to do the filtering and then get Mailman to drop anything > that SA has identified as spam (if SA doesn't already drop it). > > Regards > > Philip > > > > On 26 August 2013 13:57, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Philip Colmer >> <philip.col...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > So we could flip the management of the list on its head, then, and make >> the >> > list wide open but blacklist spammers ... except that you then find >> yourself >> > in a reactive mode. In other words, spam gets onto the list because the >> list >> > is open, so you add the sender's email address to the blacklist, which >> works >> > until they pick another email address and you are waiting to spot spam >> > again. That *potentially* is a tougher approach to take because if >> someone >> > isn't *actively* blacklisting the spammers, you could end up with a lot >> of >> > spam on the list once someone finds it. >> > >> > This may still be a better way to go. I'm not arguing either side :-). >> I'm >> > just highlighting a potential drawback to going the "open" route. >> >> I'm going to dig up this old thread issue again. I've got the same >> problem on the boot-architecture list, and it probably goes for any of >> our "in the open" development lists. I completely agree with Wookey on >> this point. Having to manually whitelist developers is the complete >> opposite of what is required for development lists because we really >> don't know who is going to post. It could be anyone, anywhere and >> manual moderation ends up getting in the way of development. The >> boot-architecture list isn't working for us at the moment for this >> exact reason. >> >> In my mind, if we have to either actively manage a whitelist or a >> blacklist, then we've got a serious problem. Blacklists don't work >> anyway for spam because the sender address changes with pretty much >> every spam message. It has to be a spam filter implemented on the list >> server. We know it is possible because there are lists servers out >> there that do in now. vger.kernel.org is a fantastic example. It is >> good at filtering spam, handles a huge volume, and there is no >> moderation. Creating a new list does not require someone to volunteer >> for moderation duties. However, I don't know how complicated it is to >> set up. >> >> How did the test of google groups go for passing patches correctly? If >> it handles them okay, then I would be okay with moving >> boot-architecture to a google group if it would allow unmoderated >> posting. >> >> g. >> >> > >> > >> > On 20 February 2013 10:51, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 20 February 2013 16:19, Wookey <woo...@wookware.org> wrote: >> >> > +++ Philip Colmer [2013-02-20 08:36 +0000]: >> >> >> I'm not entirely comfortable with blindly white-listing anyone >> who >> >> >> posts >> >> >> to linaro-dev with something that doesn't look like spam, for >> >> >> several >> >> >> reasons: >> >> >> 1. That is not a great way to run a moderated mailing list. >> >> >> 2. IT aren't going to be in the best position to say whether or >> not >> >> >> the >> >> >> sender should�be able to send to linaro-dev, even if they didn't >> >> >> send >> >> >> spam. >> >> > >> >> > Why do we want to block anyone from linaro-dev unless they are >> >> > spamming (which would include being too-far off-topic)? >> >> > >> >> > Arguments about the admin load of moderation, or the difficulties of >> >> > spam-filtering accurately on an open list, I can understand; but the >> >> > idea that this list should be restricted to only suitably enlightened >> >> > people by default seems wrong to me. It should be as open as we can >> >> > practically make it, shouldn't it? >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> linaro-dev mailing list >> >> linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org >> >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > linaro-dev mailing list >> > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org >> > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > > -- Jonathan Aquilina
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
