Continuing the discussion from Allow posts in all upper case:
Now that moderation is a thing, could we get a checkbox or option (or default behavior) to hold emails from known users for moderation, instead of bouncing them?
In this forum, we don’t want to moderate all posts, but would be more than happy to handle the handful of moderated posts, instead of having the emails bounce back.
I am not sure I understand this request? Are these emails rejected because the email addresses are unknown?
In my recent case, the rejected email was from a known, level 1 user. The content didn’t meet discourse’s standards (it was all caps, it was too long, etc … any reason).
I’m asking that these emails just don’t get bounced, rather held in the moderation queue, even if emails from that user would not normally be subjected to approvals.
Unlikely, if you think you are GOING TO GET A LOT OF ALL CAPS REPLIES you should simply lobby for that validation to be disable-able. Or if you will get a lot of 3-character replies, reduce the threshold there.
So lobbied 
https://meta.discourse.org/t/allow-posts-in-all-upper-case/30324
But no, I don’t want short replies, and I don’t want uppercase posts… but what I want even less is a bunch of hassle chasing them down.
Moderation, or saving copies of rejected emails, would make take much less of an admin’s time.
This would be like Christmas in June. Our users are fairly well behaved so it doesn’t happen for us too often, but when it does it’s a real pain to either manually re-create the message on behalf of the user, or beg them to re-post it but “don’t do X” (once you as the admin figure out what X actually was).
The feedback on why exactly the email was rejected is much clearer as of Discourse 1.5, at least.