Rick M wrote:
The more widely you deploy the 'moderated' flag on subscribed senders,
the more one of two things must then ensue: Either the listadmins
work incrementally harder monitoring the held-messages queue frequently,
or legitimate posters encounter delay in their postings going out -- or
some combination. Both of those things are (differently) bad.
To turn this around, though, I would rather suggest that at the extreme,
completely deploying the 'moderated' flag on subscribed senders puts
the major burden of "working incrementally harder" on subscribers and
rather eases the burden a bit on listadmins for the latter to continually
have to review, filter-out as necessary, and reject illegitimate posters,
OTOH, completely eliminating the 'moderated' flag on subscribed senders
rather puts the major burden of "working incrementally harder" on listadmins
instead, and rather significantly eases the burden on both legitimate and
illegitimate posters to get out their postings. At some point or another on a
fairly continuous basis, listadmins could (or even should) keep on top of
completely unmoderated mailing-lists for the clear benefit of other
subscribers to ensure both that the Volume of messages is at a
manageable level and that the Content of threads is at least
reasonably appropriate for the list (e.g., no spam-type messages,
no drivel, no excessive or at all advertisements, ...etc.)
For listadmins, more scutwork is a turnoff.
Hence the SysAdmin adage that "A Good Systems Administrator is a Lazy One"
(see sources ,,) can and probably does apply for mailing-list admins as well.
For those reasons, the moderated flag should be used only to the minimum
And the moderated flag could be used, IMO, as a possible warning to those
posters who get way out of hand in the high Volume or very questionable
Content within their posts.
Sources, references, etc.