From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4279 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2003 07:46:37 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 22 Jan 2003 07:46:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 7282 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2003 07:46:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 5798 Received: (qmail 7275 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2003 07:46:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jan 2003 07:46:13 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [66.33.200.10] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 22 Jan 2003 7:46:12 -0000 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (zugzug.hq.newdream.net [127.0.0.1]) by drama.hq.newdream.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B4103B37E for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.hq.newdream.net (Postfix, from userid 1012) id 408803B37B; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:46:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:46:13 -0800 From: william@hq.newdream.net (Will Yardley) To: "'zsh users'" Subject: Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@ Message-ID: <20030122074613.GB17627@hq.newdream.net> Mail-Followup-To: "'zsh users'" References: <15917.34532.553820.426917@cns-build2.cisco.com> <6134254DE87BD411908B00A0C99B044F03A0B5F3@mowd019a.mow.siemens.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6134254DE87BD411908B00A0C99B044F03A0B5F3@mowd019a.mow.siemens.ru> Organization: New Dream Network X-Image-Url: http://infinitejazz.net/will/mailpic.jpg User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Borzenkov Andrey wrote: > "Peter" == Peter Stephenson writes: >>> There's no-one here but us chickens. This sounds OK by me, are >>> there any violent objections? >>> Oliver tends to deal with a lot of the Sunsite-related stuff... do >>> you want to decide finally about this, Oliver? >> How about require a zsh specific header like: >> X-zsh: .... >> >> Non X-zsh email will be bounced with a warning message. >> >> Advantage: >> * no need for confirmation wait >> * reduce network traffic >> >> DisAdvantage: >> * add this header when posting > I personally say "no" unless you explain how to add custom headers to > mail sent to specific address only in Outlook. Well one suggestion would be "Don't use Lookout!". That said, I don't think it's safe to assume that all list members can easily add custom headers... With most console based mailers (which most people who post to the list frequently seem to use). I personally think that subscriber only posting (but allowing non-members to post with confirmation) is the best way to go. I think that most of the time, I see more viruses / spam coming from this list than actual list traffic... At the very least, I'll echo the request to stop stripping Received lines. This makes it difficult / impossible to report spam and viruses sent to the list, and also probably reduces the effectiveness of some spam filters. > Confirmation mode looks like the least evil (if current measures do > not work). I can put up with need to subscribe to both lists if it is > absolutely necessary. I'm not sure exactly what needs to happen, but it seems like it would be pretty trivial to configure the MLM to allow traffic from one list to the other, if that's what needs to be done. I don't know EZMLM, but this would be pretty simple in Mailman. -- Will Yardley input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >