Dan Astoorian posted to the bug tracker:
>Specifically: it is (IMHO) probably incorrect to apply
>the "Hold" action to messages which were not submitted
>to the list address. For example, a message sent to
>"listname-owner" and matched by a "Hold"
>header_filter_rule should not be held for approval
>(irrespective of whether the message was administrivia
>(It is not clear to the end user whether approving such
>a held message would cause the message to be delivered
>to the original "listname-owner" address, or whether it
>would be sent to the list itself.)
Definitely the message received by the user in this case is misleading,
but the held message if approved will go to the owners/moderators
only. I think Dan knows this.
>I suspect (but have not verified) that similar issues
>may exist for other mail paths (e.g., -request, -admin,
Unless you are seeing something I'm not, this is not the case. The
issue is that SpamDetect.py is in both the GLOBAL_PIPELINE and the
OWNER_PIPELINE, but messages to
not processed through SpamDetect.py and are never held for any reason.
>Probably the most sensible thing to do with messages
>that match a "Hold" rule would be to hold the message
>only if the "tolist" key is set; otherwise, do one of
>a) continue on to the next rule, as though the "Hold"
>rule failed to match the message;
>b) accept the message; or
>c) discard the message.
>It's not clear to me which of these options makes the
>most sense. Discarding the message is probably unwise,
>as a "hold" rule in the first place suggests that the
>administrator does not consider all mail that matches
>the rule to be expendable.
I think b) accept the message is the correct action since the 'hold
rule' implies the owner/moderator wants to see the message and
accepting the message sends it to the owners/moderators.
Mark Sapiro <msapiro(a)value.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan