Moderation of pkg-gnome-maintainers
Hi,
I'm currently moderating regularly the pkg-gnome-maintainers (under
other). This is a short summary of how I do it, in case you wonder why
some mail never reacehd the list.
1/ moderation tool
I'm using the web interface of Mailman on the alioth site to do the
moderation. I poll it regularly since I don't get any notice of
pending mails to moderate.
The list of messages to moderate is presented in the "pending
administrative requests" page, and offers a list of possible actions on
presented messages with the following information:
- reason of request
- subject of message
- headers and beginning of message
2/ moderation criteria
Until now, I saw messages waiting in the moderation pool for the
following reasons:
- strange header
- message too big
- too many recipients
I've configured the header X-Spam-Level: \*\*\* to be a filtering
criteria, messages of SpamAssassin Spam Level >= 3.0 will be moderated.
I've raised the message size limit from the default or 40 KB to 60.
3/ moderation decision
In the suspicious header case, I read the subject of the message, and
when it isn't enough I read headers and the beginning of the message to
decide whether this is spam. It usually is, and is discarded, when it
isn't I accept the message.
When the message is too big, I would like to strip the message of big
attachments or superfluous text, replaced by an administrative note. I
can only do this if I receive a copy of the message, and this is not
the case by default. In the past, I sent a copy of the message to my
mail address to strip the parts as explained, but these forwards didn't
reach me for a while now, so I've given up this technique. These
messages are discarded too.
Finally, in the case too many recipients are listed, I double-clech
whether the body is spam or not and take a decision accordingly.
I hope the above is clear, let me know if I can improve the process or
if I should clarify some parts.
Bye,
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
"Neutral President: I have no strong feelings one way or the other."
Reply to: