On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 03:39:10PM -0400, Pat Wolf wrote:
> On 7 Oct 99, at 19:51, Dennis Budd <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Pat Wolf wrote:
> >
> > >On 7 Oct 99, at 0:39, rex <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> A serious limitation of REVIEW is that the message cannot be
> > >> altered without appearing to come from the editor.
> > >
> > >
> > >You can edit a post and send it back to the list with an additional
> > >header "Resent-From: [log in to unmask]". It will then appear
> > >to come from the original sender.

BTW, this is not RFC822 compliant. "Resent-From: ..." is supposed to
reflect the user who injected the message, in this case, the list owner.

> > However this behavior *only* happens when the list is configured
> > "Send= Editor".  If the list is configured "Send= Private" (or any
> > setting other than "Editor"), the post will appear to come from the
> > *editor*, not the original sender, regardless of any "Resent-From:"
> > headers that may be inserted.
>
> My list (OES-L) has the following in its header:
>
>    Send=private
>    [log in to unmask] (this changes depending on the work load)
>
> These settings allow us to put everyone on review intially and take
> them off as they get used to the Topics.
>
> I just did one. When I approved the resent message and it showed up
> on the List it looked like it came from the original poster and it
> now contains these additional headers:
>
> Approved-By:  [log in to unmask]
> Comments:     Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
> Comments:     Originally-From: "Pat Wolf" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Isn't that what you are trying to accomplish?

Functionally, yes. However, there are two problems:

1) It doesn't work for me. Perhaps you can post the appropriate headers
for each post in the two step process? (To:, From:, Resent-*:, etc.)

2) It appears you must handle each message twice.

I've tested the method I proposed ("* Send= Editor") when I initiated
the thread. It seems to work the way I expected: The majority of
posters are set to be editors (set mylist editor for *@*), and the
problem posters are set to be non-editors one-by-one. When editors
post their posts go directly to the list. When non-editors post
I get a message to be approved, which I bounce to my list. "Bounce"
means I add the single line "Resent-From: [log in to unmask]" to the
headers. Nothing else is changed in the headers. I'm free to edit
the body of the message. The message I send back to the list is:
==================================================================
From: Somebody <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CHAT: ignore

This message was originally submitted  by [log in to unmask] to the BIRDTECH-L
list at LISTSERV.AOL.COM.  If you simply forward  it back to thelist, using a
mail command  that generates "Resent-" fields  (ask your local user support or
consult  the documentation  of  your mail  program  if in  doubt),  it will  be
distributed  and  the  explanations  you   are  now  reading  will  be removed
automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you receive into
a digest, you will have to  remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should
be able  to contact  the author  of this  message by  using the normal "reply"
function of your mail program.

----------------- Message requiring your approval (11 lines)------------------
On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 12:26:26AM -0700, Nobody wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 12:11:18AM -0700, Somebody wrote:
> > > > Anyone have two pet bats?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > What kind?
>
> Foxes.

Flying foxes?

===================================================================

The result is that the message (sans LISTSERV boilerplate) appears
on the list and appears to come directly from [log in to unmask]
LISTSERV adds "Approved-By: [log in to unmask]" to the headers, so there
is a record of the editor's intervention.

The advantages of this method are:
1) The editor needn't approve most messages (same as NOREVIEW)
2) The editor can handle approvals in one step.
3) The editor can edit the message body at will.

The (possible) disadvantages are:

1) Daily message limits do not apply.
2) Non-subscriber posts will be sent to the primary editor.
3) The editor needs a MUA that will "bounce" a message by inserting
   "Resent-From: the_editor" without altering any other header lines,
   especially the "From: ..." line. The MUA must also allow editing
   of the message (some MUAs will not allow editing of a bounced
   message).

BTW, REVIEW still functions when a list is set to "* Send= Editor",
though I can't see any use for it in this case.

-rex