[Mailman-Users] Rejecting on size before content-filters
mark at msapiro.net
Sun Jan 4 17:18:54 CET 2009
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
This is the way it's normally done. The usual request is to do it the
other way around. See, e.g.,
>[I just ran into one that was nearly double the maximum
>size but got kicked out because it also ran afoul of one of the content
>filters, and so what I ended up doing was ignoring the content filter and
>putting in "message too long...etc" into the 'Reason' on my bounce
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.
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
It is also possible that Hold miscalculated the size of the message. My
first contribution to Mailman was a patch to Hold to take preambles
and epilogues into account when computing message size. Pre 2.1.7,
this wasn't done. There may be other problems in computing the size of
possibly malformed messages.
So, why was this message held. I.e., exactly what "content filter" did
it "run afoul of"?
And, if there is something strange happening, do you have a copy of the
original message, perhaps in a moderator notice?
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
More information about the Mailman-Users