Paul-Catalin Oros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 21 Feb 2002 at
13:18:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Marcel Hicking wrote:
[...]
> > Hmm, sort of. I was thinking about using the implicit email
> > adress posting allowed thing, but since From etc header can
> > be most easily faked, I don't think this is very secur
Well, that's the solution with the current Mailman. Something stronger
(digital signatures) would, of course, be desirable but I don't think it's
going to happen in the very near future.
Thinking about it, maybe such a solution can be implemented with procmail and
gpg. Mailman would accept everyt
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Marcel Hicking wrote:
> Paul-Catalin Oros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 20 Feb 2002 at
> 13:16:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > http://www.imsa.edu/~ckolar/mailman/mailman-administration-v2.html describes
> > "Posting privileges explained" somewhere. What you should do is to have
> > "Posting restr
Paul-Catalin Oros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 20 Feb 2002 at
13:16:
> Hi,
>
> http://www.imsa.edu/~ckolar/mailman/mailman-administration-v2.html describes
> "Posting privileges explained" somewhere. What you should do is to have
> "Posting restricted to members" set to No, and have some Implicitly approv
> At Wed, 2002-02-20 12:32:06 -0800 John W Baxter wrote:
>> At 2002-02-20 13:16 -0500, Paul-Catalin Oros wrote:
>> Implicitly approved people. I just tested this and it works fine.
> Implicitly approved people (addresses) can be forged. Easily.
> Over on the developer list, I recently suggeste
> At 2002-02-20 13:16:37 -0500 Paul-Catalin Oros wrote:
>> On Wed, 2002-02-20, Marcel Hicking wrote:
>> I'd like to have a moderated (here: announcements only)
>> list where I have an additional admin ("moderator") who
>> would be allowed nothing but approve or reject postings
>> (which usually wo
At 15:44 -0500 2/20/2002, Paul-Catalin Oros wrote:
>Well, that's the solution with the current Mailman. Something stronger
>(digital signatures) would, of course, be desirable but I don't think it's
>going to happen in the very near future.
The mailman-developer list is mostly not about Mailman 2
Well, that's the solution with the current Mailman. Something stronger
(digital signatures) would, of course, be desirable but I don't think it's
going to happen in the very near future.
Thinking about it, maybe such a solution can be implemented with procmail and
gpg. Mailman would accept everyt
At 13:16 -0500 2/20/2002, Paul-Catalin Oros wrote:
>Implicitly approved
>people. I just tested this and it works fine.
Implicitly approved people (addresses) can be forged. Easily.
Over on the developer list, I recently suggested using digitally signed
messages as the implicit approval mechanis
Hi,
http://www.imsa.edu/~ckolar/mailman/mailman-administration-v2.html describes
"Posting privileges explained" somewhere. What you should do is to have
"Posting restricted to members" set to No, and have some Implicitly approved
people. I just tested this and it works fine.
Is this what you wer
Hi
I'd like to have a moderated (here: announcements only)
list where I have an additional admin ("moderator") who
would be allowed nothing but approve or reject postings
(which usually would be only his own postings /
announcements)
Any hints?
TIA, Marcel
11 matches
Mail list logo
