[Mailman-Developers] Moderation rules priority

[Aurelien Bompard]

OK, I've opened a bug on Launchpad to attach my very basic
implementation (plus a unit test). It's just 3 lines, it does not
implement Stephen's suggestion (which is probably better but involves
some refactoring). Here is the ticket:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/1291452
I've tested it on my setup, it works as expected.

Aurélien

2014-03-12 1:43 GMT-03:00 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org>:
> Aurelien Bompard writes:
>
>  > I'd like to discuss what happens when an email is sent by both a
>  > member and a nonmember in Mailman3. How is that possible? Very easy,
>  > here's my use case : I have my own domain, say example.com, and for
>  > convenience and portability I choose to use Gmail as a
>  > server/storage/interface. My main adress is alice at example.com and I
>  > redirect it to alice at gmail.com, while I set a default identity in
>  > gmail to alice at example.com which will set the proper From header.
>  > However, for spam detection and spoofing reasons, gmail adds a Sender
>  > header with alice at gmail.com. My outgoing emails thus have both a From
>  > and a Sender header, and in this case email clients only display the
>  > >From header (except Outlook, but eh...)
>
> Your outgoing emails also have an envelope sender, which might be
> different from both of the above.
>
>  > Mailman now: when I subscribe to a list, I use my regular address,
>  > alice at example.com. But the message.senders property will contain both
>  > addresses because of the Sender header. The email goes through the
>  > MemberModeration rule, which finds my subscribed address and, by
>  > default, associates the "defer" action.
>  > The email then goes through the NonMemberModeration rule, which finds
>  > my Gmail address and sets the action to "hold" (it ignores my main
>  > address because it's a member already).
>  >
>  > What do you think about all that? Do you agree there's actually an
>  > issue there?
>
> Yes.
>
>  > 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?
>
> Offhand I'd say that having both a Member rule and a NonMember rule is
> a bad idea.  There should be one conceptual test: can we identify a
> member as the originator of this post?  Having Member and NonMember
> rules that can both "succeed" is not coherent.
>
> I think that what should happen here is that the Member rule should
> try to identify the originator, and the NonMemberModeration (if in
> effect) should just check for a "member_identified" property.  The
> member_identified property could be a Boolean or actually contain a
> list of members (list because it's not obvious what to do if each of
> From, Sender, and envelope sender corresponds to a different member;
> that would probably be a policy issue).
>
> I don't really see how order dependence can be avoided without
> violating DRY all over the place.
>
> Alternatively, NonMemberModeration might not be a rule, but rather a
> chain.  Perhaps that's the most elegant solution, as order dependence
> between chains is necessary.
>
>
>