Unfortunately I don't see a reply-to header on your messages. What do
you have it set to? I thought mailing lists see who is in the "to"
section of a reply so that 2 copies aren't sent out. The "mailing list
ethics" guide I read said to always use "reply all" and the mailing list
system takes care of not sending duplicate replies.
I removed your direct email from this reply and only kept the mailing
list address, but for the record I don't see any reply-to headers.
On 2/28/2019 2:21 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
Please respect my consciously set Reply-To header. I don't ever need 2
copies of a message posted to a mailing list, and ignoring that header
is rude.
On 28 Feb 2019, at 13:28, Mike Marynowski wrote:
On 2/28/2019 12:41 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
You should probably put the envelope sender (i.e. the SA
"EnvelopeFrom" pseudo-header) into that list, maybe even first. That
will make many messages sent via discussion mailing lists (such as
this one) pass your test where a test of real header domains would
fail, while it it is more likely to cause commercial bulk mail to
fail where it would usually pass based on real standard headers.
(That's based on a hunch, not testing.)
Hmmm. I'll have to give some more thought into the exact headers it
decides to test. I'm not sure if my MTA puts in envelope info into
the SA request or not. For sake of simplicity right now I might just
ignore mailing lists, I don't know. What I do know is that in the
spam messages I'm reviewing right now, the reply-to / from headers
set often don't have websites at those domains and none of them are
masquerading as mailing lists. I haven't thought through the
situation with mailing lists yet.
I'm new to this whole SA plugin dev process - can you suggest the
best way to log the full requests that SA receives so I can see what
info it is getting and what I have to work with?
The best way to see far too much information about what SA is doing is
to add a "-D all" to the invocation of the spamassassin script. You
can also add that to the flags used by spamd, if you want to punish
your logging subsystem
