Re: bfteam config fixed

[Bob Proulx]

> Now I am completely confused.
> 
> What are these "moderator messages" which only the moderator addresses
> receive?

Unfortunately I have already deleted them.  But they were the same as
this sample, by way of identifying them:

  As list administrator, your authorization is requested for the
  following mailing list posting:
  ...
  At your convenience, visit:
  ...
  to approve or deny the request.

Those started showing up in my address@hidden folder, due to my
procmailrc processing that automatically files according to the
Mailman X-BeenThere: field.

  :0
  * ^X-BeenThere: address@hidden
  * ^X-BeenThere: \/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+
  $MAILDIR/Lists/gnu/$MATCH/

Those bfteam moderator messages were very unusual to see in those
those folders.  I am not subscribed to the bfteam list.  And they were
administrivia messages.  Very unusual to see there.

Unfortunately I have already deleted the messages making this
speculation now as to the root cause of them.  I did not think that I
would need to refer to them again or I would have kept them.  And I
did not investigate them deeply, just shallowly and made assumptions.
But as far as I could determine at the time they had an X-BeenThere
header and that filed them with the bfteam messages but I believe they
came through the listhelper-moderate mailing list, at least that is
what I thought at the time.

It is possible that I am missing a key data point about those messages
and something unexpected-to-me happened to them that would make
perfect sense if all were known.

> I was under the impression that owner received a proper
> superset of moderator in terms of what msgs were received.  Doesn't seem
> to me that anything else would work right.

You are reminding me that I have been mixed up about those two
addresses before and probably this time now is no exception.  I have
been wrong about those more than once previously already.

But do we agree that bug-gnu-utils is in an okay configuration?  That
has been that way for a while.  In which case my change to make bfteam
look like bug-gnu-utils was an acceptable thing too?  "Acceptable" in
that it is not in a bad configuration now, even if we have not yet
converged on agreement about the need to do it this particular way or
that particular way yet in general across the set of lists.  At the
moment I think it makes a difference and as I understand your
viewpoint you would say that it does not make any difference which
field listhelper-moderate appears in, correct?

> I have already configured another 30 or so lists with l-m in the
> moderator field (see /tmp/lmod on lists), so if it has to change,
> there's a lot to redo.

I am not sure there is enough return-on-investment at this moment to
research why bfteam behaved strangely for me.  I would rather take a
wait and see what happens approach.  If it is a systematic problem
then more message should turn up the same way from other lists.  We
can try to address the issue if it is proven to be a problem at that
time.

Alternatively I can put things back and that should recreate the
problem.  You know, that is easy enough.  I just now restored the
configuration to the way that I had found it originally.  Over the
next day I would expect to see a repeat of the problem and then I
would have a data sample in my hand for better analysis.  Let's wait
and see what gets caught in the net.

And just so I don't forget to say thank you for the work, many thanks
to you and Oleg for pulling in all of those additional lists and
getting them cleaned up.  They have been needing it.  This is all very
good stuff to get done.

Bob