Re: PATCH: Access priority

On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:40 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote:
> > One possible solution - at least to the bypass moderation problem -
> > might be to add another keyword. We could add "send" to force the mail
> > past normal moderation procedures.
>
> Exactly what I was thinking after reading the issues you raised above.
...
> Shall I put together a new patch?

Yes, that would be nice.

I can't think of many real-world scenarios where it would be useful, but
if you have the time to write a patch, let's have that feature. It
should not complicate things by much.

On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 23:03 +0100, Franky Van Liedekerke wrote:
> my 2 cents:
> - I always though of allow/reject as being on the IN-side: allow a mail
> to be send to the list and go on with the next steps (or reject), so
> personally I prefer the third flow. But functionally the second and
> third flow are almost alike, with the advantage of the third flow
> that you can force certain mails to be moderated

It is, and I think it makes good sense.

> - if the third flow is choosen, don't call the new keyword plain
> "send", call it eg. "force-send" or "bypass-mod" or so. People tend
> to like descriptive keywords :-)

Why break a tradition og choosing ambiguous keywords? ;-)

> - whatever flow is choosen, I find it very nicely explained and want
> this ASCII art in a README :-)

Patch attached. Will that do?

Morten

-- 
Morten Shearman Kirkegaard <moki_at_fabletech.com>
CTO, FableTech
http://fabletech.com/