[Mailman-Users] Replies from non-members getting posted to list set to allow posts by subscribers only

[Anthony R. Thompson]

On 6/21/2010 12:25 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> At one point I had an address (chiraelx at gmail.com) which was subscribed 
>> to the list (adf-www).
> Do you mean (as implied by your access to the inbox) that this is your
> personal address?

Yeah, one of several :)

> If so, I don't know if GMail allows this, but is it possible that you
> configured that account to automatically have an Approved header?

No, but...

This reminded me that I had set the Reply-To for chiraelx at gmail.com to
athomps at adf.org (this account).

So I just removed the Reply-To in the Gmail settings, and tried posting
again, and got the expected rejection notice - yay.

However, this raised another question - why did the Reply-To setting
affect the behavior of Mailman?

So, I tried posting to this list (adf-www) from a completely unrelated
account, artx at sigilservices.com.  As expected, I got the post sent back
to me with the nonmember_rejection_notice text.

BUT, when I sent a post from artx at sigilservices.com with a Reply-To of
athomps at adf.org (which *is* subscribed to the adf-www) list, instead of
getting a rejection notice back to artx at sigilservices.com, instead "Your
message to ADF-WWW awaits moderator approval" was sent to athomps at adf.org!

This is very weird behavior - it's weird that Mailman would behave
differently when the From has not changed, but the Reply-To header has,
especially since it's so easy to set that to anything one wants.

I guess my initial issue is resolved, since I had forgotten about
setting the Reply-To in GMail - and I do apologize for that.

But it's still odd that Mailman would act differently based on the value
in the Reply-To field, unless I'm not understanding something correctly.

Thanks Stephen, and Mark too, for your help.

(And while I'm at it, how do I request a feature for a future release?
I was glad that there is a nonmember_rejection_notice field, but would
have really liked to see a nonmember_hold_notice field too!)

thanks,
Anthony