Mark Sapiro wrote:
Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
OK, Barry. I've come up with this patch (for the current CVS). If its OK, I want to start up for the release of 2.1.8a1.
The pass through of the 'hold' action if the message is to -owner seems right to me, but discarding instead of rejecting a 'reject' action if the message is to -owner seems wrong.
Well, then it should be passed. Rejection makes it another loop of rejection notices if an initial poster forges the From: address as list-owner. Yes, I tested this. Nothing could stop this if the mailman qrunner wasn't stopped. (Maybe growing size of rejection notice would hit the MTA limit.)
I think we should not change the disposition for a 'reject' action. The rule can be for lots of purposes, not just spam and if the owner has configured the rule to reject the message, I don't think we should discard it just because it is to -owner and not to the list.
I have one idea for 2.1.8a1 before we wrap it up. I'll address that in a separate post.
OK.
-- Tokio Kikuchi, tkikuchi@ is.kochi-u.ac.jp http://weather.is.kochi-u.ac.jp/