On 03/11/2014 03:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 11, 2014, at 06:25 PM, Aurelien Bompard wrote: > >> What do you think about all that? Do you agree there's actually an >> issue there? Any idea how to solve it? For example, make the NonMember >> rule exit if a member is found amongst the senders (which would simply >> be equivalent to making it yield to the Member rule). Bad idea? > > Ah, an interesting case! My immediate reaction is that nonmember-moderation > should do exactly what you suggest: test for both membership and > nonmembership. If it's both, then return False as if the action were > Action.defer. This should allow the member-moderation rule to take > precedence. > > Can you think of a reason *not* to do this?
I think that's the right thing to do. In 2.1, a single module does both. Addresses are tested from headers in a defined order, and the first member address found determines the action. Only if no member address is found, are non-member tests done. I'm not sure about the architecture of the chain of rules, but maybe the member-moderation rule could set a flag in the metadata to tell the nonmember-moderation rule to take no action rather than testing for membership, but this might be a bad idea as it would make the rules order sensitive. -- Mark Sapiro <m...@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
