[Mailman-Users] Non-subscribers defeating the generic non-member action

[Robert Boyd Skipper]

Mark:

About the list's accept_these_non-members, I have ten email address that 
I put there for people who want to send from multiple emails but only 
want to receive posts at one of those addresses.  None of them resemble 
the problem address. 

I'll do the testing you suggest and report what I find.

Skipper


Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Robert Boyd Skipper wrote:
>   
>> Thank you for this info.  I'll see if I have access to
>> archives/private/LIST.mbox/List.mbox.
>>     
>
>
> If you don't have direct access to the file on host, you can get it via
> the web with a URL like
> <http://www.example.com/Mailman/private/LIST.mbox/LIST.mbox>. This works
> whether the archive is private or public.
>
>
>   
>> To answer your question, I made a mistake in the regex (it's been years
>> since messing with those little darlings). I actually blocked the
>> spoofed email by putting "test at mydomain.org" in the "discard these
>> non-members" list.
>>     
>
>
> The ONLY thing that will be accomplished by putting an address or regexp
> in discard_these_nonmembers is that mail from matching non-member
> addresses will be discarded instead of applying generic_nonmember_action.
> If generic_nonmember_action is other than Accept, this should have no
> effect on whether a particular message goes to the list without moderator
> action.
>
>
>   
>> Since I have also been getting emails from
>> "test at otherdomain.com" I thought I would just discard everything with a
>> username the same as my (pretty unique) listname.  But I see now that I
>> got that regex wrong.
>>
>> I don't understand how non-alphanumeric characters made a difference,
>> either, but they did.  Emails containing  such characters were not in
>> general a problem, but if they started with a '_' or a '-' or something
>> of the sort, mailman would simply let them through. When I put the
>> following regexes into the spam filter rule 1, the problem stopped:
>> from: _.*@.*
>> from: -.*@.*
>> and then, later, just in case, I added
>> from: \W.*@.*
>>     
>
>
> Did you ever test with your own message with a From: beginning with '_' or
> '-' to see if that was really letting messages through or if it was just a
> coincidence?
>
> Again,
>   
>>> What if anything is in the list's accept_these_nonmembers?
>>>       
>
>