Mark Sapiro wrote: > Tokio Kikuchi wrote: > >>OK, Barry. I've come up with this patch (for the current CVS). >>If its OK, I want to start up for the release of 2.1.8a1. > > > > The pass through of the 'hold' action if the message is to -owner seems > right to me, but discarding instead of rejecting a 'reject' action if > the message is to -owner seems wrong.
Well, then it should be passed. Rejection makes it another loop of rejection notices if an initial poster forges the From: address as list-owner. Yes, I tested this. Nothing could stop this if the mailman qrunner wasn't stopped. (Maybe growing size of rejection notice would hit the MTA limit.) > > I think we should not change the disposition for a 'reject' action. The > rule can be for lots of purposes, not just spam and if the owner has > configured the rule to reject the message, I don't think we should > discard it just because it is to -owner and not to the list. > > I have one idea for 2.1.8a1 before we wrap it up. I'll address that in > a separate post. > OK. -- Tokio Kikuchi, tkikuchi@ is.kochi-u.ac.jp http://weather.is.kochi-u.ac.jp/ _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
