[Mailman-Users] Allow discard-and-forward for spam filters?
arpepper at uwaterloo.ca
Fri Apr 1 14:20:23 EDT 2016
> From: Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:42:18 -0700
> On 3/30/16 5:49 AM, Adrian Pepper wrote:
> > However, in
> > https://python.org/mailman/admin/mailman-users/privacy/spam
> > you can only Dicard or Hold.
> > (Complete list Defer, Hold, Reject, Discard, Accept).
> > It would be nice if for each filter rule individually you
> > could choose "discard and forward to moderator".
> > Has that actually been implemented in subsequent versions of Mailman 2,
> > i.e. between 2.1.12 and 2.1.21 ?
> It is an interesting idea. The problem is that unless someone submits a
> patch, I'm the one that would end up doing it, and even with a patch,
> I'd need to audit it. I'm starting to get more involved in MM 3, and as
> such, have less time for MM 2.1 "nice to haves". You can always submit a
> request for MM 2.1 at <https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+filebug>.
> I don't know what your mods "for recognizing alternative email
> addresses" are, but there is since MM 2.1.19 and equivalent_domains list
> attribute to, e.g., say that @mac.com, @me.com and @icloud.com are all
> the same for list membership purposes.
It is about user name equivalences, and, even if it could be made
not specific to here, my hunch is the mods are specific to here, with
built-in database lookup assumptions and stuff. I didn't really need
to say what the local mods are for, I was just indicating an additional
possible reason for inertia.
> > Now certainly we wouldn't want [or would appreciate the choice
> > not] to "forward to moderator" all discards on the /spam page.
> > And, really, the "does this fail the membership (filter) requirements"
> > is something you'd like to be able to determine in the spam filters.
> > (And simply discard those, perhaps forwarding if they are not too
> > spammy). (Because really really we'd like to "hold" slightly spammy
> > messages which meet membership requirements, but discard-and-forward
> > the others, but discarding-and-forwarding-to-moderator all would be
> > reasonable compromise).
> The easiest way for me to implement this would simply be to add a
> "Discard and Forward" action to the other choices. Adding a Forward
> checkbox that would apply to any selected action is certainly more
> flexible, but more complicated to implement.
Yes, that's what I assumed might be done unless it really turned out to
be easier to make it a separate checkbox. With the separate checkbox
you could end up with the silliness of "hold and forward to moderator".
Thanks for the reply, I'll try to find time to send my suggestion to
More information about the Mailman-Users