Re: Moderation - Mailing list pgsql-www

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 7:18 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@aklaver.com) wrote:
> > On 8/13/21 10:03 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >* Adrian Klaver (adrian.klaver@aklaver.com) wrote:
> > >>On 8/13/21 9:53 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Nope, I think the common factor is they're cced to multiple lists. We
> > >>>discourage that pretty strongly and for that reason all such emails are
> > >>>moderated.
> > >>
> > >>I don't suppose it is possible to include that information in the moderation
> > >>message? If nothing else as a hint. Muscle memory says hit Reply All. If I
> > >>got a reminder of the policy I could cancel the message and resend to a
> > >>single list.
> > >
> > >Isn't implemented today ... but +1 on figuring out a way to do that.
> >
> > Could it not be added as:
> >
> > Hint: You may be getting this message if your post was cross posted. Either
> > wait for moderator approval or cancel the post and resend to a single list.
> >
> > to here?:
> >
> > https://gitlab.com/pglister/pglister/-/blob/master/mailtemplates/moderation_response.txt
>
> No, I don't think just adding it to every moderation notice that is sent
> out would be very good.  If we're going to do this then we should make
> it so that the notice actually says why it was moderated, if the issue
> was cross-posting and then have a custom notice for that.

I think that would be a really bad idea to add to *every* notice.

Doing it explicitly for moderated-because-of-multi-list-cc I can
definitely get on board with. But I think it would be
counterproductive to include the details of why something is moderated
when it is for example moderated based on a regexp we've (permanently
or temporarily) added to deal with somebody abusing the lists. That
would give them a very direct blueprint for how to try to get around
said block. Likewise if we did it for "everything except regexp
matches", because then that would be giving away the same information
based on lack of information.

Another option might be to include it in the *approval* message. Yes,
the information would be more delayed, but at least it would be
delivered. And in that case those that were moderated and later
discarded or rejected would then just not get the information.

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/