On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:14:17AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

Why was it let onto the list? I don't know. I think it should have been returned to the sender with a polite pointer to a "how to write an email for a discussion list" guide.

Because I Can't be bothered. Moderation now gets used to reject spam only. HTML mail will eventually get through on this list unless it is either stupidly massive or has a giant attachment. If anyone disagrees with this policy and wants to send the polite reminders then let me know and as long as you have some verifiable history of being on Alug or similar mailing lists I'll share the admin password. Be warned though, being a moderator will only ever mean you get complained at. Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:59:25PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

Isn't quoting a whole digest for a two-line reply "stupidly massive"? It even asks for a more specific subject line than "Re: main Digest..."

No, not really, in context of a single mail maybe but not compared to current computer capabilities. Anyhow it was certainly not in comparison to the traffic generated discussing it anyhow.

...

[...] Be warned though, being a moderator will only ever mean you get complained at.

That's not necessarily so. I've had compliments for moderating other

It seems that it is necessarily so on this list ;)

lists, but this list does have three characteristics that I think make complaints more likely:-

1. weak/vague charter (partly my fault - I was inexperienced);

The "rules" are fairly well set out. Just getting people to pay attention to them is more of a problem.

2. slow/irregular moderation;

It used to be done daily, but I got bored of almost daily complaints so it now gets done when I get tired of the moderation messages.

It'll be great if a volunteer steps up and runs the queue daily, which would help with one of those.

Until they get bored of the complaints and stop doing it anyhow ;) Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 02:55:53PM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:

Adam Bower wrote:

...

It used to be done daily, but I got bored of almost daily complaints so it now gets done when I get tired of the moderation messages.

As moderator of the PLUG list, I can add some context to this. I'm far more lazy with the moderation that Adam is, and now have 200+ messages going back over the last month to check. Since this thread made me feel a bit guilty I have just processed them, and they were all spam.

Mailman makes this as painful as possible (in my opinion) and is a large part of the problem.

listadmin IYF. I use it to process a number of lists fairly quickly on a daily basis. main@lists.alug is one of these lists, but I mostly just clear out the spam - I don't really like HTML mail so don't approve it, but understand Adam's point about rejecting it perhaps putting off newcomers. J. -- 101 things you can't have too much of : 29 - T-shirts.

Jonathan McDowell wrote:

listadmin IYF. I use it to process a number of lists fairly quickly on a daily basis.

listadmin[1] looks good, although a quick attempt at getting it working didn't get me very far. Do you (or anyone else) have an example config file for moderating lug.org.uk mailman lists? [1] http://heim.ifi.uio.no/kjetilho/hacks/#listadmin -- Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0844 251 1450 Registered in England (0456 0902) @ 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG

Just a quick follow-up: Thanks for the pointers to listadmin, it really is a massive improvement over the Mailman web interface! I actually look forward to having something to moderate now! OK, so that novelty will wear off soon enough, but still I never enjoyed the web interface even from day 1. -- Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0844 251 1450 Registered in England (0456 0902) @ 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG

MJ Ray wrote:

That's not necessarily so. I've had compliments for moderating other lists, but this list does have three characteristics that I think make complaints more likely:-

1. weak/vague charter (partly my fault - I was inexperienced); 2. slow/irregular moderation; 3. being on a tech topic.

I have no problem with the slow/irregular moderation. If the list admins are finding enough time to trawl through what I imagine is a mountain of spam to find the odd post from new members and then just either bouncing it back with reasons why it was rejected or accepting it for the list so that others can explain why it was moderated in the first place then I think they are doing the most that can be reasonably be expected and this doesn't need to happen immediately. What I think would help is if it was obvious in some way that the message had been moderated, changing the subject might break threading for people, but is there a way of automating the addition of a line at the top saying "moderated" when something hits the moderation queue ? That way we wouldn't get other members on the list wondering why a backdated message has suddenly appeared. Often when this comes up it seems to be approached with a total disregard to the moderators being voluntary and actually having other stuff to do. Of course normally such complaints are missing the offer of help you have made.

MJ Ray wrote:

Wayne Stallwood wrote: [...]

...

for people, but is there a way of automating the addition of a line at the top saying "moderated" when something hits the moderation queue ? That way we wouldn't get other members on the list wondering why a backdated message has suddenly appeared.

It's already automated: the X-Mailman-Approved-At header. I don't think that appears in messages which didn't require approval.

Having it in the headers when many mail clients don't display such information by default doesn't make it clear to the other list members. My feeling is that it would be better if it was obvious in all mail clients that a message has been moderated and I think noting it in the message body is the only universal way to achieve this.