[EM] Batch of old messages

Forest Simmons fsimmons at pcc.edu
Thu Nov 20 13:10:01 PST 2003

I think you should go for option c, but if a particular post catches your
eye and turns out to be interesting to you, let it go through.


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Rob Lanphier wrote:

> Hi all,
> You'll probably notice a batch of fairly old messages coming through on
> the list.  This is because I just went through the queue of 28 messages
> which sat in the moderator queue, and found the half a dozen or so that
> are legit emails, as opposed to the rest, which were spam.  The reason
> why all of these messages are there is because non-member mails need to
> get approved by me in order to go through.
> The mail list software for this list is Mailman, which is probably the
> best mail list management software out there.  However, one thing that
> is less than perfect is the user interface for these.  It's not meant to
> deal with large volumes of mails, which I'm receiving now (much to my
> annoyance).  This causes me to procrastinate on doing this, which in
> turn causes old mail to stack up.
> When I'm faced with a legit mail that's 20 days old, I'm at a quandry
> what to do.  I'm not keeping track of the list traffic...I just haven't
> had time to read this list.  It could be that I'm letting duplicate
> messages through, because the person who tried sending figured out they
> needed to subscribe.
> So, I'm asking the list.  Which would you rather see me do when messages
> are sent from non-list members, given the fact that I might not get
> around to cleaning the queue out more than once or twice a month:
> a.  allow legit posts through, regardless of how old
> b.  allow recent posts through (2-3 days) bounce all posts more than
> three days old, with explanation "please join the list to post"
> c.  bounce all posts, with explanation "please join the list to post"
> d.  change this to a completely unmoderated list (not really an option,
> see below)
> e.  other (see below for "d")
> I'd really rather not do "d", because it's easier for me to reject the
> spam before it gets to the list than it is to clean it out of the mail
> list archives afterwards.  In fact, I would need to contact my ISP for
> the latter.
> Thoughts?
> Rob
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list