Re: [Mailman-Users] Completely read-only list

Mark Sapiro wrote: Yes. Emergency moderation is totally separate from member moderation. It is an unconditional hold without notice to the admin/moderator. It does not look at member_moderation_action or member_moderation_notice. Gotcha. There is a script at

Re: [Mailman-Users] Completely read-only list

David Lubkin wrote: > >Actually, it's not perfect. Emergency moderation seems better than >setting everyone's moderation bit. > >Setting everyone's moderation bit either requires manually visiting >each admin page (for ~75 lists) or writing a more complicated script >to achieve what that does. Wors

Re: [Mailman-Users] Completely read-only list

Mark wrote: Set everyones moderation bit. Do not set emergency moderation. Go to Privacy options... -> Sender filters and set member_moderation_action to Reject and put your message text in member_moderation_notice. I replied: Why, yes, that's perfect. Thank you, Bill and Mark. Can't think

Re: [Mailman-Users] Completely read-only list

Mark wrote: Set everyones moderation bit. Do not set emergency moderation. Go to Privacy options... -> Sender filters and set member_moderation_action to Reject and put your message text in member_moderation_notice. Why, yes, that's perfect. Thank you, Bill and Mark. Can't think why I didn't

Re: [Mailman-Users] Completely read-only list

David Lubkin wrote: > >I've set up autorespond text to tell posters that a list has moved, >but their postings still go through to the old list that way. If I set >everyone's moderation bit (or enable the emergency moderation >flag), I still have to manually reject or discard postings. > >The answe

[Mailman-Users] Completely read-only list

I've moved and renamed a set of lists. Not everyone reads their email, though, so occasionally people try to post to the old names off the old domain name. For now, I want to retain the old lists as is, in case I need to back out of the move. I've set up autorespond text to tell posters that a li