Bob Proulx <b...@proulx.com> wrote: > Eric Wong wrote: > > Hello Savannah admins, > > Mailing lists have little to do with Savannah. I have CC'd the > mail...@gnu.org list with this response. That's the place to talk > about all things related to Mailman and the GNU mailing lists. > Savannah is all about the software source forge.
OK. I think I only put the project on Savannah because it was the only service which offered mailing lists without JavaScript or CAPTCHAs at the time. > > It seems every few months I need to login to the Mailman admin > > interface and change the `generic_nonmember_action' option to > > "Accept" postings for non-subscribers. > > > > Is there some cronjob or upgrade which keeps flipping that > > option to "Hold"? > > I am not aware of any automated process which does that. However that > is the standard configuration for new mailing lists. It's a good > configuration. It is the recommended configuration. But if you > change it as far as I know nothing will fight you over it. > > This is described in some detail here. > > https://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/ListHelperAntiSpam/ OK, so I'm following half the recommendations The ones I'm going against are: generic_nonmember_action=hold (I want Accept) default_member_moderation=yes (I want no) So, should I remove listhel...@gnu.org from moderators? I still want automated spam filters such as SpamAssassin, though. > The normal thing is that the listhelper cancel-bot will receive the > moderation notices, deduce messages that are spam, automatically > discard those spam messages from the hold queue. The anti-spam is > conservative as a false positive is worse than a false negative. > Remaining spam is discarded by the listhelper team. We roll up all of > the 1500+ lists as a collection. Agreed that false positives are worse than false negative. > Additionally any non-spam messages are also approved by the human > team, and their senders either unmoderated or whitelisted. This > results in the avoidance of spam to the mailing lists while at the > same time avoiding delays in posting as only the initial contact is > held for moderation. This has been necessary because spammers > routinely subscribe and then post spam. Therefore we moderate new > addresses as they appear. I've found automated spam filters good enough on their own and would like to just have those without human moderation. I don't want to have to whitelist anybody, it doesn't scale. > The resulting process means that as a general statement project > mailing lists need no explicit maintenance. If you as a project > maintainer and also a maintainer of the mailing list do nothing then > everything happens as needed anyway. You are however free to be as > involved in the mailing lists as you want. So if I'm away and unable to administer dtas-...@nongnu.org, and generic_nonmember_action is "Hold"; does the "human team" at GNU will eventually accept postings in my absence? > > The list in question is dtas-...@nongnu.org > > I don't recall any interaction with that mailing list. It doesn't > ring a bell with me. > > > I don't want to force users to subscribe to the mailing list to > > post(*). > > Agreed. How is that statement related to generic_nonmember_action set > to Hold? Seems unrelated. I mean that I don't want any artificial delays in handling new, unsubscribed users (in case the admins are away or unavailable). I'd rather let an occasional spam through. > We never want to require people to subscribe to post bug reports or > other messages. The GNU mailing lists are open mailing lists. Can > you imagine requiring someone to subscribe in order to post a bug > report? That would be inconvenient enough to drive most bug reporters > away. > > Although some maintainers have made subscription a requirement for > their project mailing lists. It goes against our recommendation and > guidelines. I strongly recommend against it. OK, I'm glad we agree there :> > > In my case, it was myself since I've been changing email > > addresses because of the uncertainty around being able to afford > > .org down the line. > > I will guess that you changed your email address, your first message > sent to the mailing list was therefore new and never before seen, it > was held for moderation. Is that the issue here? Maybe. I had the same issue on Feb 3, 2020 and pushed my message through. I refused to whitelist myself out of principle. Thanks.
