www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Reply-to..
Date Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:26:29 GMT
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
<justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> To satisfy my own curiosity, I scanned the apmail/lists.  470 apache
>> lists specify 'S' in config (meaning moderated subscriptions) and
>
> I'd advise that you please check your facts in the future.  You have
> it backwards:
>
>       -s     Subscription moderation.  dir/modsub is created.   dir/text/mod-
>              help is adjusted.  dir/text/sub-confirm is adjusted.
>
>       -S     dir/modsub is removed.
>
>> define a reply-to header.  Oddly, all of those 470 don't have a
>> 'modsub' file, though I can't figure out what the operational
>> difference that implies as at least one of those lists (e.g. members@)
>
> members@ clearly has 's' set (see config file).  As does this list.

My apologies for saying it backwards.

Members is specified as "mu".  legal-discuss is specified as "mu".
Per the documentation[1], this means that subscriptions are moderated
as well as posts from non-subscribers.

Members contains a "List-Post: <mailto:<#l#>@<#h#>>".  Legal-discuss does
not.

We are discussing adding a corresponding List-Post to legal-discuss.
What, if any, other changes to the configuration of list-post should
we be considering if we were to do that?

>> make this a "fully public list" (a still as of yet, undefined term) in
>
> I don't know how else to make it clear: "anyone can subscribe to the
> list without approval".  That is not the case right now.
>
>> And furthermore, if there are policies that trump the desires of the
>> community in terms of things like Reply-To headers, can I ask that
>> they be documented someplace?  Note: I am not questioning the need for
>> such policies, I am merely asking that they be documented.
>
> I am saying that for closed lists where people can post without being
> subscribed and that they can't subscribe without explicit approval, it
> is a very short-sighted policy to have Reply-To set.  -- justin

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.ezmlm.org/man/man1/ezmlm-make.1.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message