Notice the repeated use of the word "default" (which is a great word, by the way). This creates confusion:
Default action to take when this member posts to the list. List default -- follow the list's default member action. Default Processing -- run additional checks and accept the message.
Due to backwards compatibility it may be difficult to change. But if it could be modified, how about:
Action to take when this member posts to the list. List default -- follow the list's default member action. Standard Processing -- run additional checks and accept the message.
In other words, in the context of message acceptance, the word "default" should have a certain selected meaning. Then make extra effort to choose other words for other actions, as proposed here, "Standard Processing", or something similar.
Sam Darwin via Mailman-users writes:
Notice the repeated use of the word "default" (which is a great word, by the way). This creates confusion:
To be honest, while backward compatibility as such is not an issue (it's documentation, and you don't propose a change in runtime behavior), I don't see confusion worth making work and possible confusion for the translators of over 30 languages. For example, in Japanese, some of the dictionary translations of "standard" do not have the same connotation of "modifiable" that those for "default" do. But the translators are language specialists, and do not necessarily have the knowledge of Mailman necessary to make such fine distinctions.
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
Well, for more background info I am not suggesting this purely whimsically, I went through a debugging session a month or two ago where I was trying to understand message acceptance. After an hour, I figured out "Oh, stupid, it's not that this user has default processing! No. They are using defaults. Quite different."
Not sure what an analogy is. A car dealership which has two red cars, and distinguishing them using the terms "red automobile" versus "red car" to keep them separate.
Even now, I think "You can choose either default processing, or default processing, but don't get those mixed up."
About implying "modifiable",
we often use the terms "settings" or "configuration" without explicitly adding the adjective "modifiable". Many variables and configurations in technology are modifiable. That does not always need to be stated outright. If "processing" occurs, it does not imply unmodifiable.
The terminology appears in drop-down lists within Hyperkitty, so more than only docs.
Sam Darwin via Mailman-users writes:
Well, for more background info I am not suggesting this purely whimsically,
That's not what I don't understand.
I don't understand why you are confused. Specifically, cascading context-depended defaults of this kind are commonly used in system administration and software configuration. They're pervasive in Mailman, and have been for years. People have been coping with the context-dependent use of the word "default" in this way for many years. Why is it now a problem? I don't understand. That could be just me, but your explanations don't help me understand yet.
Further, if you look at the list-level configuration for that option, it will be called "list default", and similarly for the documentation of "default processing". We'd need to at least think about making those consistent with your proposal, including in the documentation. And that's on top of the translator issue.
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
I don't understand why you are confused.
I understand now, and I'm not confused. However before, when I was learning about this topic, I encountered a problem, and it's worth trying to make it easier. Even now that I 'understand', the issue continues.
It's about terminology and language, and not about the functioning of mm3.
There are distinct choices. You'd like to easily remember them, in your mind, and be able to quickly explain to yourself, or to someone else.
"list default". I would just think "Ok, clearly that's the default. Look at the name there. List default. The default."
"default processing'. I would just think "Ok, clearly that's the default. Look at the name there. Default processing. The default."
Yes, we know they're different. What is the mnemonic device to remember each one. Couldn't they be named differently?
99% of the time, you can remember "a config file", "the executable", "the bin directory", you can remember a thing based on what it's called, and those don't conflict with each other.
But if you name both of your sons "Michael" even though you understand they are separate people, it causes headaches.
If you choose a naming scheme such as "the red automobile" versus "the red car", and then ask the person "don't you understand, those are two different things for us. Why are you confused? They are two separate things. You know that. Why are you confused." Answer: the problem is the choice of naming.
So ask the question is "default processing" the only compelling name for that functionality? The word "default" is already used for "list default". Why use it again? Why not "Standard Processing -- run additional checks and accept the message." Or "Regular Processing". "Typical Processing". Anything besides "default". Invent a new word: quark-spark processing. (well, don't use 'fallback' because it's just a synonym.)
well, just trying to answer "why you are confused". maybe I am being too repetitive already.
Hi,
just to chime in: the bigger issue I see with our (non english native) list owners is the confusion between "Accept immediately (bypass other rules)" and "Default processing", in particular during moderation of a held message to set the status of a new list member which was hold for moderation as list default.
People tend to choose "Accept immediately (bypass other rules)". "Default processing" doesn't include "Accept" which I think is the reason. They want to accept the member. They want to accept it now, i.e. "immediately". They choose Accept.
I keep regularly telling them that they don't want "Accept immediately (bypass other rules)" ever. But it's not intuitive for list owners with litte moderation volume.
I check the database occasionally for members set to immediate and change it to default processing. I'll keep reminding people. But it still happens.
I think something like "Default Accept" or "Standard Accept" would be better.
And also changing the "Accept immediately" to something which makes it more clear that it's "dangerous" would be helpful to keep people from choosing it.
But I haven't found the best names for them either, yet.
I do wonder somehow if there is really a use case where you would actually need "Accept immediately". For our lists I haven't seen it, yet, but to be honest, it's not totally clear to me what the default processing rules do exactly...
Cheers,
Gerald
On 13.08.25 14:59, Sam Darwin via Mailman-users wrote:
I don't understand why you are confused.
I understand now, and I'm not confused. However before, when I was learning about this topic, I encountered a problem, and it's worth trying to make it easier. Even now that I 'understand', the issue continues.
It's about terminology and language, and not about the functioning of mm3.
There are distinct choices. You'd like to easily remember them, in your mind, and be able to quickly explain to yourself, or to someone else.
"list default". I would just think "Ok, clearly that's the default. Look at the name there. List default. The default."
"default processing'. I would just think "Ok, clearly that's the default. Look at the name there. Default processing. The default."
Yes, we know they're different. What is the mnemonic device to remember each one. Couldn't they be named differently?
99% of the time, you can remember "a config file", "the executable", "the bin directory", you can remember a thing based on what it's called, and those don't conflict with each other.
But if you name both of your sons "Michael" even though you understand they are separate people, it causes headaches.
If you choose a naming scheme such as "the red automobile" versus "the red car", and then ask the person "don't you understand, those are two different things for us. Why are you confused? They are two separate things. You know that. Why are you confused." Answer: the problem is the choice of naming.
So ask the question is "default processing" the only compelling name for that functionality? The word "default" is already used for "list default". Why use it again? Why not "Standard Processing -- run additional checks and accept the message." Or "Regular Processing". "Typical Processing". Anything besides "default". Invent a new word: quark-spark processing. (well, don't use 'fallback' because it's just a synonym.)
well, just trying to answer "why you are confused". maybe I am being too repetitive already.
Mailman-users mailing list -- mailman-users@mailman3.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-leave@mailman3.org https://lists.mailman3.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.mailman3.org/ Archived at: https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-users@mailman3.org/message/...
This message sent to vogt@spamcop.net
Gerald Vogt writes:
People tend to choose "Accept immediately (bypass other rules)".
How about "Accept immediately (no spam check)"?
I do wonder somehow if there is really a use case where you would actually need "Accept immediately".
"Need", probably not. However, for people who integrate things like Spamassassin into Mailman rather than the MTA, it's often much easier (and possibly less risky, depending on the importance of that sender) to trust the sender ID rather than adjust the filter rules. (This is a good reason to integrate Spamassassin in the MTA, but providers....)
We could also reorder the list and put "default processing" at the top. And/or add more explanatory text.
it's not totally clear to me what the default processing rules do exactly...
Here's the complete list:
https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/rules/docs/...
Which rules are checked for a given post depend on the outcome of previous checks as well as the list configuration.
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
With computers the word "default" has a specific meaning: if you have not manually set a value, this is the fallback result that occurs when you selected "nothing".
"List default" matches that meaning. When user joins a list, they are assigned this option. Nothing has been manually selected by a moderator for the user.
Do any other uses of the word match this definition?
An action that involves a selection or choice from a drop-down, and only occurs because of a selection or a choice, is not a "default".
"standard accept processing" "regular accept" ... yeah, those could be possibilities.
Sam Darwin via Mailman-users writes:
- "list default".
- "default processing'.
and "member default".
Three different names, just as "Samuel Darwin" is a different name from "Charles Darwin".
I would just think "Ok, clearly that's the default. Look at the name there. Default processing. The default."
"The" default? There's a cascade of options that are controlled by subscribers, owners, and site admins, with the lower level option values becoming defaults for the upper levels. And there's a side cascade of defaults for subscribers: user-wide defaults, address-wide defaults, and the per-subscription option values.
But if you name both of your sons "Michael" even though you understand they are separate people, it causes headaches.
Sure, but as shown above we didn't. I really don't think this is going to be a common problem. You seem to attach a connotation of uniqueness to the word "default". It simply doesn't apply to the cascade of defaults Mailman uses, while most Mailman administrators and subscribers seem to understand this aspect of how Mailman works.
So ask the question is "default processing" the only compelling name for that functionality?
That's not a useful question to the developers, though. What we ask are, "Are there better names for that functionality?" (arguable) and "Are any sufficiently compelling to warrant a change?" (not to me).
Why use it again?
- Because the functionality is a default in a cascade of defaults.
- Because at the level the issue presented itself, it's what people *should* use in the absence of a specific reason for using one of the other options.
- Because it's already there and at least 35 people are involved in changing it, it's not obvious that the change will be easy for all of them, and it's likely the changes will spill over to several more files, mostly unidentified at this point.
Abstract arguments supported by only one person's experience won't overcome the third point for me, so until you do address that point or a few folks chime in to agree that this is confusing[1], I'm out of this thread.
Footnotes: [1] I hope those who do agree will speak up. There's an awful lot of individual opinion about language flying around here. "Disagree" is not so useful since it appears that's the developers' bias anyway and we don't need a pile-on, but you all are welcome too. :-) Especially if you report similar but different issues, as we've already seen.
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
participants (3)
-
Gerald Vogt -
Sam Darwin -
Stephen J. Turnbull