On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Michael Johnson wrote: > What I want is a self-moderated list [2] to guard against forged e-mail, > that rejects non-subscriber posts [3], that temporarily holds copies of > un-approved messages requiring moderation [4], and that sends each > un-approved message to all moderators without load balancing [5]. "Send= Private,Confirm" with the appropriate use of "Review" will definitely accomplish [2], [3], and [4]. [5] is dicier. It has been my experience that when the setting is "Send= Editor", the Editor= and Moderator= settings are used to determine who the messages requiring moderation are sent to. It has been my experience that when the setting is "Send= Private", the Editor= and Moderator= settings are accepted but ignored, and all messages requiring moderation are sent to the primary listowner for approval. This was under 1.8d, if it matters. At the time, I could find no place in the Listserv documentation that specified the "documented" behavior for this. But just now, I found the following statement in the listowner manual: "Note that if a list is unmoderated, it is still possible to direct REVIEW postings to a specific person by adding an "Editor=" or "Moderator=" keyword to the list header." That implies that my experience of what Listserv actually did was not in conformance with the specifications. . . . . . > > This implies the leap-of-faith combination of > > Send= Private > with > Send= Editor,Hold,Confirm > > and then defining who all of the editors and moderators are. Thus: > > Send= Private,Editor,Hold,Confirm > Editor= owner1,owner2,owner3,(LISTNAME) > Moderator= ALL,owner1,owner2,owner3,moderator1,moderator2 owner1 will by default receive all the messages requiring moderation. If owner2 and owner3 are also list subscribers, the access level specification (LISTNAME) makes their entry redundant and you can take them out. > > Syntactically correct or not, this works for me. > > If you can recommend a less verbose method of achieving exactly the same > behavior, great. Otherwise I'm happy with the way things are set now. > For example, can I (in the context of the three-line example above) > shorten the "Moderator=" line to the following using the "EDITOR" access > level described in [6]? > > Moderator= ALL,Editor,moderator1,moderator2 (1) In contexts like these, access levels must be enclosed in parentheses, so it would be coded (Editor), not Editor. (2) The documentation for the "Moderator=" keyword specifies that the entries for this keyword must be actual net addresses and not access levels, so this will not work. The verbosity is necessary in this line. In terms of what is correct, I would recommend that you specify Send= Private, Confirm Editor= owner1 and leave the moderator line as it is now. The "hold" and "(listname)" parts of it are redundant; they both go inherently with "Send= Private", so Listserv is accepting and then ignoring them. The only difference it would possibly make if the primary list owner starts getting copies of the moderated messages instead of all of the moderators. That is not supposed to happen according to the documentation, but the equivalent did in fact happen to me a few years ago, so I would certainly be interested if it made that kind of difference. On the other hand, if it works the way you want now, I would say it's not necessarily worth changing. Listserv has a long history of simply ignoring without any complaints any parameters that fall within its syntax rules but are invalid in a particular context (like this one, I expect). It will accept "Send= Private, Hold" without complaint even though "Hold" only makes sense with "Send= Editor". (And BTW, the manual states: "'Hold' is valid only with 'Editor'.) I suspect it's doing the same thing with "Send= Private, Editor", taking "Private" and then ignoring "Editor". That's why you think that this combination is actually working to give you what you want. Dennis > -- > Best regards, > Michael >