[Mailman-Developers] [ mailman-Bugs-1416853 ] Jan 14 change toHandlers/SpamDetect.pyisincomplete

[Mark Sapiro]

Dan Astoorian wrote:
>
>Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's wrong ever to use a reject rule
>for spam filtering in the first place, since so much spam has forged
>sender information anyway, but debating that is well beyond the scope of
>how this bug should be fixed.

I think we all agree that 'spam' should be discarded or maybe held for
examination by a human, but never rejected.

The problem I see is that while header_filter_rules are in the Spam
filters section of the admin interface and enforced by a module named
SpamDetect, they can actually be used in other ways to reject messages
which are not 'spam' per se.


>However, I agree with Mark that discarding instead of rejecting feels
>wrong.
>
>Would checking the x-beenthere: headers to avoid the loop not be a far
>cleaner solution, or is there some reason I've overlooked why that
>wouldn't work?

X-Been-There: won't work because it's never added in messages to -owner.

Perhaps we could test if msg.get_sender() == mlist.GetOwnerEmail(), and
discard in that case only, but I'd want a somewhat different test in
case the sender's domain were not identical - something like

    if msg.get_sender().split('@')[0] == \
               mlist.GetOwnerEmail().split('@')[0]:

-- 
Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net>       The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan