June 2004 - Zope-Dev

(no subject)
by 快看 25 Jun '04

25 Jun '04

1 0

RE: [Zope.Com Geeks] Re: [Zope-dev] zope-dev list policies
by Tim Peters 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

[Ken Manheimer] > I noticed this when it went initially went by, but didn't have time to > follow up. The upshot is that there is absolutely no way *under the > current arrangement* that this is going to happen. I can see a way to > swing it, requiring earnest volunteer effort. Here are the details. I think you have something different in mind than was being discussed. "Members only" comes in several flavors. You seem to have the "... and non-member posts are held for moderator review" flavor in mind. That wasn't suggested. Two other flavors were: - "... and non-member posts are rejected". No messages are held for moderator review then. A would-be poster with a legitimate email address gets an auto-generated rejection reply msg. Since most rejection msgs would go to bogus addresses on spam and virus email, m.z.o gets another bounce back for most attempts to send a rejection reply. - "... and non-member posts are discarded". No messages are held for moderator review then. Non-member posts go to the bit bucket, without comment or recourse. > Being the administrator of many of the zope lists (probably over ten and > below twenty), i am already dismayed by the challenge of the typically > thirty to one hundred held spam messages, bounces, and other effluvia i > have to handle *per day*. I do not know how many of the legitimate list > messages would additionally be held and require more attention (with the > current mailman implementation, it takes a lot more fuss to approve a > held message than to discard it), but the load is already untenable, so > one more is too many. > > There is an option, however. It's possible to add moderators to lists, > separate from list administration privileges. I would be willing to set > the lists to hold non-member postings, *if* there were volunteer > moderators that would actually take care of some significant portion of > the load - ie, i would not have to approve one non-member (alternate > address) posting. (I would not mind occasionally approving a > non-member/alt-addr posting if the volunteers reduced the spam/bounce > handling efforts in the process.) In my (limited but real <wink>) experience, this doesn't work. Without a single clear owner, postings held for review eventually grow to unmanageable bulk. Nobody enjoys the moderation task, it does consume time, and when there are multiple moderators they all eventually reach a point of believing that "someone else" can handle it for a while. After a few days go by like that, a co-moderator who is able to make some time logs in and finds such a backlog that they decide they have more urgent work to attend to. Then it snowballs out of control. We had a clear example of this about a month ago, when the backlog of python-help messages waiting for review reached thousands. At that point the only realistic option was to discard all of them, effectively making python-help the "... and non-member posts are discarded" list flavor. The only "... and non-member posts are held for review" list I moderate that works is the PSF Board mailing list. That works because I'm the only moderator, legit traffic on it is very light, and I know enough Visual Basic to automate the reject/approve process without leaving Outlook <wink>. > ... > That's the situation. Are there people that would be willing to > volunteer for moderation duties? (Say which lists when you reply - and > make sure to cc me directly, since i can't read most of the lists i > moderate.) The rub is that mailing lists are open 24 hours per day, 365.2425 days per year, and virus/spam traffic keeps increasing. Good intentions get crushed by that reality.

3 3

BP server
by Bill 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

1 0

Re: Zope-Dev Digest, Vol 11, Issue 23
by Stéphane JULIEN 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

Attention! It seems you have got a virus on your machine! Please make sure you have the latest update of your virus scanner and check all your files right away! Take care, zope-dev-request(a)zope.org

1 0

Re: [Zope.Com Geeks] Re: [Zope-dev] zope-dev list policies
by Ken Manheimer 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

I noticed this when it went initially went by, but didn't have time to follow up. The upshot is that there is absolutely no way *under the current arrangement* that this is going to happen. I can see a way to swing it, requiring earnest volunteer effort. Here are the details. Being the administrator of many of the zope lists (probably over ten and below twenty), i am already dismayed by the challenge of the typically thirty to one hundred held spam messages, bounces, and other effluvia i have to handle *per day*. I do not know how many of the legitimate list messages would additionally be held and require more attention (with the current mailman implementation, it takes a lot more fuss to approve a held message than to discard it), but the load is already untenable, so one more is too many. There is an option, however. It's possible to add moderators to lists, separate from list administration privileges. I would be willing to set the lists to hold non-member postings, *if* there were volunteer moderators that would actually take care of some significant portion of the load - ie, i would not have to approve one non-member (alternate address) posting. (I would not mind occasionally approving a non-member/alt-addr posting if the volunteers reduced the spam/bounce handling efforts in the process.) That's the situation. Are there people that would be willing to volunteer for moderation duties? (Say which lists when you reply - and make sure to cc me directly, since i can't read most of the lists i moderate.) Ken On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Andrew Sawyers wrote: > Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > >> +1 for member-only posting >> >> On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:24, Tim Peters wrote: >> >> >>> Over on the zope and zope-dev lists, there's currently agitation to make >>> them members-only mailing lists. The point is that spam could not get >>> thru >>> then (unless posted by a member). >>> >>> What would zodb-dev members like? >>> [...] >>> >>> > +1 > I propose this policy extends to all ZC managed community lists. > Andrew Sawyers > >

3 4

bug day?
by Leonardo Rochael Almeida 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

This next Friday (25th) is the last friday of the month. Are we going to have a bugday? Cheers, Leo

2 1

Re: [Zope.Com Geeks] Re: [Zope-dev] zope-dev list policies
by Andrew Sawyers 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

Ken Manheimer wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Andrew Sawyers wrote: > >> Ken Manheimer wrote: >> >>> What proportion of the list traffic comes from valid members who are >>> posting from alternate accounts? >> >> >> A huge percentage was - I don't know how much is making it through to >> the lists though. I'm hearing a lot of complaints from people either >> third party, seeing it in IRC or from emails off the lists. >> >> I've recently added an increased amount of header and body checks >> which were not being applied yesterday as well as increased spam >> reject features. This should help - in any event now that it's being >> blocked at the MTA, Mailman's load on the server has went from 2 -3 >> to ~.5 on the server in the last hour. >> Andrew > > > Huh? I was specifically talking about the legitimate postings, "valid > members who are posting from alternate accounts", sounds like you're > talking about spam. Yeah, I was. Misunderstood. Others will have to answer this for themselves. I've said my peace - so that's enough for me. Andrew -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700

1 0

Re: [Zope.Com Geeks] Re: [Zope-dev] zope-dev list policies
by Ken Manheimer 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Andrew Sawyers wrote: > Ken Manheimer wrote: > >> What proportion of the list traffic comes from valid members who are >> posting from alternate accounts? > > A huge percentage was - I don't know how much is making it through to the > lists though. I'm hearing a lot of complaints from people either third > party, seeing it in IRC or from emails off the lists. > > I've recently added an increased amount of header and body checks which were > not being applied yesterday as well as increased spam reject features. This > should help - in any event now that it's being blocked at the MTA, Mailman's > load on the server has went from 2 -3 to ~.5 on the server in the last hour. > Andrew Huh? I was specifically talking about the legitimate postings, "valid members who are posting from alternate accounts", sounds like you're talking about spam. >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Andrew Sawyers wrote: >> >>> Ken Manheimer wrote: >>> >>>> I noticed this when it went initially went by, but didn't have time to >>>> follow up. The upshot is that there is absolutely no way *under the >>>> current arrangement* that this is going to happen. I can see a way to >>>> swing it, requiring earnest volunteer effort. Here are the details. >>>> >>>> Being the administrator of many of the zope lists (probably over ten and >>>> below twenty), i am already dismayed by the challenge of the typically >>>> thirty to one hundred held spam messages, bounces, and other effluvia i >>>> have to handle *per day*. I do not know how many of the legitimate list >>>> messages would additionally be held and require more attention (with the >>>> current mailman implementation, it takes a lot more fuss to approve a >>>> held message than to discard it), but the load is already untenable, so >>>> one more is too many. >>>> >>> Why would we hold non-member postings for review? Why not simply outright >>> reject them? >> > > >

1 0

test: ignore
by Andrew Sawyers 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

test -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] zope-dev list policies
by Leonardo Rochael Almeida 24 Jun '04

24 Jun '04

+1 for member-only posting On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:24, Tim Peters wrote: > Over on the zope and zope-dev lists, there's currently agitation to make > them members-only mailing lists. The point is that spam could not get thru > then (unless posted by a member). > > What would zodb-dev members like? > [...] --

2 1