> "TO" == Terri Oda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TO> Might be interesting to set it up with rankings a la
TO> spamassassin and have it autoreject instead of sending if the
TO> message fits a whole lot of criteria. (eg: a big attachment
TO> by a non-subscriber tends to be a cop
> In the longer term I think we'll need to reorganize how holds are put
> on messages. I'd like to see Hold.py and Moderate.py simply tag the
> messages with hold criteria, and then there would be a separate
> configuration for the precedence of criteria. And in the admindb
> page, you'd get to s
> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CVR> Barry --
CVR> looks like 2.1b4 is evaluating messages slightly out of
CVR> order. If I get a large piece of spam (my message limit is
CVR> 30K, the spam is, say, 60k), it gets held as too large,
CVR> before the
I'm also having a problem with the evaluation order.
I have messages that get held for approval, even though they would've
been auto-discarded by my sender filters. This is probably because I
have "Must posts have list named in destination (to, cc) field" set to
yes, which is probably evaluated bef
Barry --
looks like 2.1b4 is evaluating messages slightly out of order. If I get
a large piece of spam (my message limit is 30K, the spam is, say, 60k),
it gets held as too large, before the evaluation can take place that
should reject it as being from a non-subscriber. Seems to me these
eval
