On 4 Jan 2009 at 8:18, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Bernie Cosell wrote:
Is it possible to change the testing-order so that the list size limit is tested [and generates an appropriate reject] *before* the content filters are processed?
This is the way it's normally done. The usual request is to do it the other way around. See, e.g., <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2008-December/064541.html>.
Do you really mean "content filter" as in "Content filtering" or do you mean something else, perhaps header_filter_rules? "Content filtering" doesn't hold messages. It just removes parts, and perhaps does filter_action if it removes the entire message, but "hold' is not one of the actions.
My bad.. Sorry I'm new here and I don't get the terminology right. The filter that tripped was in Privacy options/spam filters".
You can rearrange the pipeline similarly to the suggestion in the above referenced post so that whatever handler was responsible for this hold comes after the Hold handler which processes the message size limit amongst others.
Ah, Ok -- I see the post and I'll try to figure it out and change the order...
So, why was this message held. I.e., exactly what "content filter" did it "run afoul of"?
It was a little "spammy" by our spam filter [Barracuda]. The listmembers are *astoundingly* spam averse but [of course] I don't want to reject a lot of false positives, so what I've done is set it up so that 'vaguely spam-like' submissions are, in essence, moderated. In addition to "hold"ing on "X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: Yes" I also hold on X-Barracuda- Spam-Score: [other than zero]. This gets a LOT of false positives [a spam score of 1.2 isn't very spammy, but it *might* be spam], so I just send-em through if they're OK. BUT: if the message is too large, then I don't want to send them through, even if the message was legit. so I want the "you're too big" filter to bounce the message before the spam- filter 'holds' it for me.
/Bernie\
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <--