[Mailman-Users] A DMARC munging issue ... ?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Mark Sapiro writes:

 > That is exactly what happened. header_filter_rules is processed by
 > SpamDetect which is the first handler in the pipeline.

I see why Barry created Chains of Rules for MM3.  This is messy.

I think for this reason DMARC checking should come before spam
detection, or be done as part of SpamDetect rather than moderation.
If dmarc_moderation_action is reject/discard, let's not waste any
further CPU cycles or queue space, let alone moderator time, on
applicable messages.

 > This leaves two choices. Either honor the dmarc_moderation_action
 > which will possibly reject or discard a pre-approved post, or fall
 > back to Wrap Message which may produce list messages in an
 > undesired format.

If the list's policy is to reject/discard, that's the policy.
Consider what you're saying:

1.  A message looks very spammy to SpamDetect.
2.  The moderator sees it and decides otherwise.
3.  The message is from a "p=reject" Author Domain and gets trashed.
4.  List mourns.

But!

1.  A message looks legitimate to SpamDetect (because it *is*).
2.  The moderator never sees it.
3.  The message is from a "p=reject" Author Domain and gets trashed.
4.  List rejoices.

I should hope not!

If you don't like legitimate message being trashed, don't set DMARC
action to reject/discard, because that setting *will* result in
legitimate messages being lost.