Feature Requests item #1387243, was opened at 2005-12-21 08:01 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=1387243&group_id=103 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Matt Swift (msswift) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: option to discard messages that lack explicit destination Initial Comment: The configurable variable require_explicit_destination is a boolean that selects whether to hold a message for moderation if neither the list address nor any aliases appear in the To: or Cc: headers. On certain lists I manage, a lot of spam is sent to the lists via BCC:. Setting this variable keeps this spam off the list, which is great, but I spend a lot of time discarding the spam. I can't simply discard all messages held for moderation, because there are occasional legitimate messages held for another reason that I want to accept. So I have to trawl through it all. Therefore, please make the require_explicit_destination setting offer the familiar choices of allow, hold, reject, and discard. I'd be happy if you added just "discard" without adding "reject", but the full four choices would be consistent with the rest of Mailman. This will save me a lot of time, and I would think many other users are in the same situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2005-12-21 08:32
Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 I think this is a good idea. In the mean time, see the post and reply at http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2005-December/048078.html and http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2005-December/048086.html for some interim patch ideas. Also see the post at http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2005-February/042954.html for a way to do this with spam filters that doesn't require patching. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matt Swift (msswift) Date: 2005-12-21 08:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1409646 P.S. I realize that I can accomplish what I want by an appropriate setting of header_filter_rules, but it's not very convenient, since I can't make use of acceptable_aliases. The introduction of header_filter_rules is great, but it creates confusion by making the existing sender and recipient filters redundant. I suggest renaming the section in which header_filter_rules from "spam filters" to "advanced filter" or something like that. All three sections can be used to filter spam, so it's misleading to distinguish a "spam filter" from sender and recipient filters. The documentation for header_filter_rules / "advanced filter" section should explain that this filter is a general mechanism which exists; the sender/recipient filters are special cases that are common enough to merit a convenient interface just for them. Even with this clarification of the header_filter_rules, I still think require_explicit_destination should be expanded to offer all four actions. If you're going to go to the trouble of setting up the special interface to filter a lack of explicit destination, it really ought to offer complete options. It won't complicate the interface (really, it will simplify it to have the familiar four actions offered), and it seems very awkward to have to recreate this nice interface in header_filter_rules (acceptable_aliases and so on) just because the manager wants an action other than "accept" or "hold". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=1387243&group_id=103