On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:56:40 -0600
Jack L. Stone said something about Re: will the list admin please firewall
203.197.156.192 - 207:
My main question remains unanswered. What is that scope of that
"authority"...? That's an exact question which has nothing to do with a
personal interpretation of what is considered a "lecture". It's a
question
a subscriber should be entitled to ask when someone holds themselves out
to
have some vague authority. Nor should implied authority be used to
If Mr. Straw doesn't want to define his "authority", then so be it.....
Best regards,
Jack L. Stone,
He defined it pretty well in #2.
-----------SNIP------------------
2. While I have access to the LIST config (to deal with users who run
vacation scripts and whatnot), the original purpose of obtaining
administrative access to the list config was to deal with problem users
(vacation messages and the like), not to tweak the general list
configs. I've sent a message to the listadmin, notifying him of changes I
believe should be made (namely, reject ALL multipart and text/html
messages, which will inconvenience some users who insist on sending
PGP/MIME messages, but is for the greater good). Hopefully, I'll hear back
from him soon.
-----------SNIP------------------
He was given FULL access to the list config/admin options. This is
primarily to unsub email addresses when they start hammering the list with
improperly set up autoreplies and vacation messages because the list owner
is not subscribed to the list and doesn't see these problems. He can DO anything
with the list config, but he DOESN'T do anything other than what he was
originally given access for unless he first asks the list owner (and asks
the list members at large if they feel it would be a good idea).
If I remember correctly, when he was given the ability to unsub problem
addresses he specifically stated he did NOT want autonomous control of all
list decisions specifically because it COULD intimidate some users who knew
he was the "list GOD" and reduce his effectiveness as a daily participant
in the list traffic. He didn't want autonomy then, he doesn't want it now.
In this instance he probably unsub'd the one @*.in address that was most
likely the source of the viral attck and then he sent a message to the list
owner requesting permission to change the list config to reject multipart
messages (to which a response could take weeks, that's the original reason
he got the limited permission to remove subscribers he has now).
G
--
Gerald V. Livingston II
Configure your Email to send TEXT ONLY -- See the following page:
http://expita.com/nomime.html
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail