Andreas Barth writes:
- Stephen J. Turnbull (turnbull.stephen.fw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp) [210217 09:54]:
Right. So what you mean is "ok, we have group permissions, and maybe someday there will be a case for ACLs down to arbitrary subsets of the user population," but you don't have a concrete use case for arbitrary ACLs at the moment.
I definitly have a usecase for that, but: currently other priorities :) (I had to do an ad-hoc takeover of lots of infrastructure in my spare time within an volunteer organisation including mailing lists, so getting wishlist itmes done is not my top priority at the moment.)
Just from the top of my head, for example I want to differentiate between private, member and public lists. So if a member logs in, they see more lists than a non-member. This is currently not possible, not too big a deal (all member lists are currently configured as private) but of course would be nice. Also archiv access should be aligned with these permissions.
This would not be worth doing with generic ACLs from Postorius, unless the list had (many) fewer than 100 users. What I'd end up doing (and I bet you would too) is write a 15-line mailmancli script that extracted membership information and then created the ACLs. But you'd still have to modify the Django templates, I suspect, and perhaps database schema.
Essentially the same 15 lines could be put into Mailman itself without ACLs, and checking ACL membership is not going to be much, if at all, faster than checking list membership.
Of course the appropriate split between private changes and public changes is also something which might need some discussions.
Not sure what you mean by private and public here, but if you mean which changes we should maintain and which changes you should maintain locally, I haven't seen anything in this thread that we wouldn't want to offer all Mailman 3 users. From Abhilash's and Mark's posts, I believe they feel that way too. It's just a question of whether a very general implementation is needed/worthwhile.
Steve