Merge lp:~jimpop/mailman/mailman-auto-mod-verbose-members into lp:mailman/2.1
Proposed by
Jim Popovitch
Status: | Merged |
---|---|
Merged at revision: | 1595 |
Proposed branch: | lp:~jimpop/mailman/mailman-auto-mod-verbose-members |
Merge into: | lp:mailman/2.1 |
Diff against target: |
120 lines (+50/-1) 6 files modified
Mailman/Defaults.py.in (+6/-0) Mailman/Gui/Privacy.py (+12/-0) Mailman/Handlers/SpamDetect.py (+8/-0) Mailman/Utils.py (+19/-0) Mailman/Version.py (+1/-1) Mailman/versions.py (+4/-0) |
To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~jimpop/mailman/mailman-auto-mod-verbose-members |
Related bugs: |
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
Mark Sapiro | Approve | ||
Mark Shapiro | Pending | ||
Review via email: mp+276706@code.launchpad.net |
Commit message
Auto-Moderate verbose members
Description of the change
This is a simple patch to enable the following two Privacy/Sender features:
member_
Ceiling on acceptable number of member posts, per interval, before automatic moderation.
member_
Number of seconds to use in determining whether or not to automatically moderate a member.
The code tracks member posts in a simple python dictionary, and then checks the dictionary each time a post is processed via Mailman/
To post a comment you must log in.
It is not clear why you have
add_only_ if_missing( 'member_ verbosity_ threshold' , 0)
in versions.py instead of
add_only_ if_missing( 'member_ verbosity_ threshold' ,
mm_cfg. DEFAULT_ MEMBER_ VERBOSITY_ THRESHOLD)
Oversight perhaps. Also I think Defaults.py.in should probably have
DEFAULT_ MEMBER_ VERBOSITY_ THRESHOLD = 0
Also, the first few lines of Utils.IsVerbose Member( ) seem unnecessary, and I'm not completely comfortable with recentMemberPos tings being a global in Utils.py rather than a list attribute.
And, do you really see 5 posts from the same member in 5 minutes?
Finally, I'm curious if you ever saw <https:/ /www.msapiro. net/scripts/ PostLimit. py>. I guess it is very different in detail, but the goal may be similar.
I've been reluctant to actually implement that on my production server, although it has been suggested as a way to control one member (I'd rather have a conversation than hit him with a hammer, although hammers have their place.)