[ mailman-Bugs-1416853 ] Jan 14 change to Handlers/SpamDetect.py is incomplete

[SourceForge.net]

Bugs item #1416853, was opened at 2006-01-27 15:05
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1416853&group_id=103

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: security/privacy
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Dan Astoorian (djast)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Jan 14 change to Handlers/SpamDetect.py is incomplete

Initial Comment:
tkikuchi's patch to Handlers/SpamDetect.py to avoid an
infinite loop when administrivia messages are caught by
spam filters fails to fix a related problem; a
different approach should perhaps be considered.

Specifically: it is (IMHO) probably incorrect to apply
the "Hold" action to messages which were not submitted
to the list address.  For example, a message sent to
"listname-owner" and matched by a "Hold"
header_filter_rule should not be held for approval
(irrespective of whether the message was administrivia
or not).

(It is not clear to the end user whether approving such
a held message would cause the message to be delivered
to the original "listname-owner" address, or whether it
would be sent to the list itself.)

I suspect (but have not verified) that similar issues
may exist for other mail paths (e.g., -request, -admin,
-(un)subscribe).

Probably the most sensible thing to do with messages
that match a "Hold" rule would be to hold the message
only if the "tolist" key is set; otherwise, do one of
the following:
a) continue on to the next rule, as though the "Hold"
rule failed to match the message;
b) accept the message; or
c) discard the message.

It's not clear to me which of these options makes the
most sense.  Discarding the message is probably unwise,
as a "hold" rule in the first place suggests that the
administrator does not consider all mail that matches
the rule to be expendable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1416853&group_id=103