[Mailman-Users] Re: broadcast only

[David]

excuse my ignorance (no modesty intended!), but if you disable the post
alias, would not that mean that even the admin. couldn't post?

David

On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Tanner Lovelace wrote:

> Darron Froese wrote:
> 
> > On 11/28/00 6:53 PM, "David" <david at kenpro.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> >>> 1. Turn off the archiving feature.
> >>> 2. Make *only* the list administrators be able to post to the list - making
> >>> it essentially a broadcast only list.
> >>> 
> >>> These can be done from within the administration interface.
> >> 
> >> Are you referring to the "privacy" section? or is there somewhere else?
> > 
> > 
> > You betcha. I don't know of another place other than in the privacy section.
> > 
> >> As far as I can see, you can only force admin. approval, which means you
> >> could easily finish up with a lot of bogus posts to reject. Is there any
> >> way to bounce non-admin. posts completely? I cant see one.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes that is correct. I *don't* know of a way to reject any non-admin posts
> > right out of hand. That's the only solution that I can find in the web admin
> > and from searching the list archives manually.
> > 
> > It's a bit of a pain in the ass for "broadcast only" lists.
> > 
> This may not be the most elegant method, but why don't you try disabling 
> the posting
> alias.  You could change the posting alias to be something like 
> listname-private at ...
> You might need to uncheck the box that says to make sure the list 
> address is in the "To:"
> or "CC:" headers.  You might also want to always post to it using BCC: 
> so that the
> private address isn't accidentally made public.
> 
> Using this method, if someone tried to send a message to listname at ... it 
> would automatically
> bounce because there wouldn't be any alias setup for it.  I realize, 
> however, that this is security
> through obscurity which isn't the best choice, but it would probably 
> work for most casual
> situations...
> 
> Tanner Lovelace
>