This really isn't a place for discussing Majordomo; might I direct replies
to firstname.lastname@example.org? I do appreciate the input.
>>>>> "TB" == Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@ig.co.uk> writes:
Yes, user. Receipt of acknowledgments is a per-user variable. The list
owner can set the default.
TB> The sender's not going to ask for one because the sender typically
TB> thinks that the message will pass okay.
Some users care, some don't. I do pretty quick turnaround for my lists so
only really curious users should have an interest in knowing things stalled
out. I also fear giving less technical folks access to that kind of
information by default; I'd think too many would be apt to ignore a stern
'do not resend your message' warning, forcing the moderator to read the
group before doing any approvals.
TB> I'd make it a per-list option that defaults to on.
I would certainly be annoyed that I'd have to add yet another procmail rule
to get rid of the annoying acknowledgments, since I don't really see my
replies here (on p5-p, not majordomo-workers) to be of any great
importance. Besides, Majordomo doesn't do acknowledgments now, so making
acknowledgments a default would be additional backwards compatibility
breakage. (I'm trying to make list owners have to adjust as little as
You have prompted me to investigate a new acknowledgments setting that acks
only stalls (except for moderated lists) and rejections, not successes.
Some people might like that.