[EM] Batch of old messages

[David GLAUDE]

Rob Lanphier wrote:
>> Obviously answer to the problem is to really moderate the list... not 
>> every 20 days.
> 
> Sifting through spam in a limited webform interface is a task I really 
> don't look forward to.  So, unfortunately, it may be 20 days between 
> times that I do this.

Maybe that is the problem, having them in your normal mail box and 
sorted automaticaly (and maybe SPAM checked a client site) would have 
been best.

> That said, I just found the configuration option titled "Send mail to 
> poster when their posting is held for approval?"  I changed this from 
> "no" to "yes".  The good news is that mail will immediately get sent 
> when someone posts something that gets held in my queue.  The bad news 
> is that this mail goes to spammers, and will often lead to bounces, 
> which means even more mail for me to sift through.

YES, my first missed post to the list was not automaticaly answered. I 
would have resend it directly with the right "From:" if I knew it was a 
mistake... At first I was thinking "Maybe my post is delay and this is a 
mailing-list with a big lag." then "Maybe my post was out of topic, this 
list is moderated and they don't like my message." then "Well maybe my 
mail was send... I did not see it because I was not subscribed yet and 
no one did reply.".

"20 days later" it was more clear. ;-)

I hope you can configure the message to explain that they can either 
send the mail themself by subscribing or maybe wait up to 20 days for 
you to approve it. Also when you see a potential duplicate (already 
resend by the poster but also in your queue...) make sure you do not 
approuve it. ;-)

>> Another solution is to have multiple moderator... they will all get 
>> the SPAM but the processing of wrongly sended mail to the list will be 
>> much faster... (in my case I used a wrong email address to send).
> 
> I thought about this.  The problem with this option is that there's no 
> way to give someone access to moderation queue without giving them 
> access to a bunch of other stuff.  I don't think I like that.  If I were 
> to do that, I would have to give it to a longtime list member who I've 
> had enough of a rapport with that I can trust them.

I think this is a limitation of the peaple hosting the mailing list... 
or the version of MailMan in use at that place. I think latest version 
of MailMan authorise multiple moderation (but I don't know if it is with 
full or only limited priviledge). Whatever version of MailMan you use is 
however the BEST tools in town for mailing-list management.

> I've kept the list of subscribers secret.
> So, as long as you trust that I won't use your email address for 
> nefarious purposes (I won't, just in case this made you wonder), there's 
> no reason to avoid subscribing.

There is no reason not to trust you.

This come back to the main problem with e-voting... who do you trust for 
keeping your ballot secret and count it the way it should.

Somehow I prefere to trust many anonymous working under the control of 
partisan observer... rather than few expert working in the shadow and 
operating black box.

The question always come back to know how many peaple should work 
together to change the election result.

> (for example, if you prefer reading from web archives).

About W