Was: Shuttleworth (SABDFL) wants to shutdown this ubuntu.user list

[Amedee Van Gasse]

On Fri, September 30, 2011 17:38, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Amedee Van Gasse
> <amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, September 29, 2011 17:23, Rashkae wrote:
>>
>> > My idea is simply that mailman requires a function to 'lock a thread'.
>> > When invoked by a moderator, any reply to any message in that
>> discussion
>> > thread gets rejected.  I see no reason why this would not be
>> relatively
>> > trivial to implement.  Sure, it would be easy for people to work
>> around,
>> > but only a few would, and those can be dealt with directly as
>> > misbehaving agents.  I think that effectively disabling people's
>> 'reply'
>> > button to an unwanted discussion thread would solve 90% of the
>> problems
>> > with a list like this.
>>
>> Due to the nature of SMTP (SIMPLE mail transfer protocol), this would be
>> (almost) impossible to implement.
>>
>> There's a feature similar to this on Google Groups, and I like it a lot.
> That one actually works
> on new accounts.  In the groups I manage, each new member is set on
> moderation status,
> so that I have to approve or reject their messages.  As it works for me,
> if
> they never post
> there's no problem.  If their first post is reasonable, I remove the
> moderation.  I can restore
> the moderation or ban the user for future infractions, but I've never had
> to.  In practice, this
> filters out the folks who join just to spam the group.  It's low
> maintenance
> for me because
> I get an email whenever I have to take action, and this is just for each
> user's first post.  When
> there are no first posts, I don't even have to think about it.  The result
> for members is also
> good: they haven't seen spam in years.
>
> It would be interesting to see if the list could have a selective "hold
> and
> moderate" feature
> like this.

I'm sorry, but the feature that you describe in great detail (and I know
about it, I have run mailman lists in the past) is totally different from
the feature that the OP requested.