[Pkg-mailman-hackers] Bug#320296: mailman: mails with implicit destination should be configurable and subject to filtering

[Roger Lynn]

On 28/07/2005 08:06, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> There are two issues with mailman related to it not accepting pr rejecting
> mails "with implicit destination" as per its config.
> 
> First issue:
> 
> Mails with "implicit destination" (which I think is a confusing term, too)
> are always subject to moderation.  If a list receives lots of such mail a
> lot of manual work is involved. Mailman should simply respect it's accept
> (or reject etc. list). It doesn't matter wether the mail uses an "implciit
> destination", if the sender is subscribed or in the accept/reject list,
> mailman should act as it says.
[snip]
> I think mailman should just drop this "implicit destination" logic. If it
> does serve some purpose, it should only be applied to mails that would
> otherwise be accepted, as it invalidates spam filtering and accept/reject
> lists otherwise (they are being ignored). At the very last it should be
> possible to disable this behaviour.

Have you tried setting the "require_explicit_destination" option to "No" in
the Privacy options... -> Recipient filters section of the administrative
interface? As I understand the description, it should do exactly what you want:

"require_explicit_destination (privacy): Must posts have list named in
destination (to, cc) field (or be among the acceptable alias names,
specified below)?

Many (in fact, most) spams do not explicitly name their myriad destinations
in the explicit destination addresses - in fact often the To: field has a
totally bogus address for obfuscation. The constraint applies only to the
stuff in the address before the '@' sign, but still catches all such spams.

The cost is that the list will not accept unhindered any postings relayed
from other addresses, unless

   1. The relaying address has the same name, or
   2. The relaying address name is included on the options that specifies
        acceptable aliases for the list."


Note, I've not tested it to see if it actually works as described.

Personally I like the option, although I agree that the term "implicit
destination" is probably confusing for users.

Roger