smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Michael Coxe <audities@gmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: New list owners (STATUS: Audities -> PopUnderground?) |
| Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:15:35 -0700 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (4.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Hi all,
Been busy but I have time now to answer most of Craig's questions.
Answers inline.
Craig Leve wrote:
> (1) First of all - I'm really looking forward to working with Sam &
> James. I am an often very busy parent of two boys (9 & 12), with a
> full time job as a data analyst. I'd like to think that between the
> three of us we can share the work, call on each other's counsel and
> carry on the fine tradition of this list.
I think that is what you are all expecting - to share the load and
spell for each other when vacations and the like come up. Plus I
won't leaving the list, so you may always ping me when needed.
> (2) I for one would like to see the name Audities continued. Taking
> Michael at his word - that he has no lingering issues on this issue,
> my sense is most of the list wanted to see this name continue and that
> this is a continuing legacy to a fine magazine and it's creator. What
> do you both think (Sam & James)?
I saw an affirmative from James, but Sam did you reply? You setup the
Pop Underground group blog with some effort in anticipation of the
change.
> (3) Is there an online resource where I can look over the the details
> of Majordomo II?
http://www.mj2.org/csf/ has some good info
The Smoe.ORG management Web interface is here.
------------
http://www.smoe.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwadm
Login as List: audities
Password: !In$@ne (not insane)
Please be careful and don't make any changes :)
I will also add your addresses as list owners this weekend.
I can also setup a WebEx or Meetingplace meeting (Cisco
owns both so it's free for me), where I can walk you folks
through the Web interface. Sound like a plan?
> (4) the smoe.org administrative messages - do they appear with a
> consistent subject line? I use gmail and would like to set a filter to
> easily identify those messages and flag them for attention.
Some example subject headers:
---------
The messages are all sent To: audities-owner@smoe.org
And are From: audities-owner@smoe.org
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE audities Lee_Swartz@sonymusic.com
Subject: D6CD-50AA-AE38 : CONSULT from audities (subscribe)
Subject: 98C1-8A5B-59CD : REMINDER from audities
Subject: Majordomo results: Re: 9A40-F67F-8D05 : CONSULT from audit
my Google mail filters
--------
Matches: subject:(CONSULT from audities)
Do this: Skip Inbox, Apply label "audities-admin"
Matches: from:(mj2-owner@smoe.org) subject:(Majordomo results: Re:)
Do this: Skip Inbox, Apply label "audities-admin"
Matches: subject:(REMINDER from audities)
Do this: Skip Inbox, Apply label "audities-admin"
Matches: subject:(SUBSCRIBE audities)
Do this: Skip Inbox, Apply label "audities-sub-unsub"
Matches: subject:(UNSUBSCRIBE audities)
Do this: Skip Inbox, Apply label "audities-sub-unsub"
Matches: from:(mj2-owner@smoe.org) subject:(Bounce detected (list audities))
Do this: Skip Inbox, Apply label "audities-bounce"
> (5) You've had new folks moderated on joining right? How does this
> typically work? How long do you keep folks moderated before releasing
> that status? Is the initial moderated status to keep the barrier high
> for would-be spammers?
There is a rule (under "access_rules") that says anyone who has been
a subscriber less than 3 days is moderated.
post
consult, reason="New subscribers are moderated"
$days_since_subscribe >= 0 AND $days_since_subscribe <3
There are also these rules in the same access_rules file:
------------
Reject messages larger than 30K bytes - mainly to stop folks who
include the digest in their reply
post
deny, reply=NONE
$body_length > 30000
Includes custom subscribers-only text when non-subscribers
attempt to post
post
deny, replyfile=/subscribers-only.txt
!@MAIN
A restricted file for misbehavors - don't think anyone is
there at the moment :)
post
consult, reason="Subscriber requires moderator approval to post"
@restricted
> (6) I don't know the details of what most wore you down as list admin
> over the years but if you have wisdom to share in this regard, I would
> truly welcome that. I know that very rarely you placed no more than a
> handful of people on probation (moderated, them I believe) and even
> asked one person to leave the list. What were the thresholds for you
> in dealing with these kinds of issues.
There was Gier Hongro who I have to ban for a while, also he later understood
why he was removed and agreed to play fair, and has been a good citizen since.
There there were trolls during our peak as a list - the 1999 - 2001 period.
I sure you remember the ones.
I've probably erred to far in giving misbehavors too much leeway. I should
have used moderation more and quickly. Nip it in the bud is what I suggest
you folks adopt for those people.
Then there's Bob Sagarini - haven't heard much from him since I February.
I'm leaving him as your problem :)
I'll have more suggestions but I'm tired of typing and I want to
get this out before you wonder what happened to me.
- Michael
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.