bypassing rules on an individual basis
I have a mailing list that, due to specific circumstances, has a requirement to allow messages from a user that sends messages with no subject. I've added the address to the "Accept these non-members" collection, but messages from that address still get held for moderation, due to the no-subect rule.
https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/rules/docs/...
https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/rules/docs/...
I went through the list's interface, and I wasn't able to find a mechanism to disable the rule, aside from editing the code itself. I also added header filters to immediately accept the message, but they still get held. Specifically, the rules I defined are:
Header, Pattern, Action
subject, ^Subject:\s*([[{(]?no[_ ]subject[]})]?)?\s*$, Accept Immediately subject, ^Subject:, Accept Immediately subject, ^, Accept Immediately
Did I configure this correctly and/or is this the right course of action? Is there a better way to bypass this rule?
Thanks
On 4/4/25 08:10, via Mailman-users wrote:
I have a mailing list that, due to specific circumstances, has a requirement to allow messages from a user that sends messages with no subject. I've added the address to the "Accept these non-members" collection, but messages from that address still get held for moderation, due to the no-subect rule.
Do not add the address to accept_these_nonmembers.
Is the user a member? If so, go to the Members list, click on the user
(search if necessary), scroll down to
Administration options Moderation
and set the dropdown to Accept immediately (bypass other rules) and
click the Save changes button below that.
If the user is not a member, do the same thing, but use the
Non-Members list.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
via Mailman-users writes:
I have a mailing list that, due to specific circumstances, has a requirement to allow messages from a user that sends messages with no subject.
Do you mean "any user who sends a message with no subject", or are there specific users who do this? If there is one such user (or a handful), and you trust that user not to abuse the privilege, you can directly pre-approve that user from Users menu in the list configuration (see Mark's post for details). This also works if there is no Subject field at all!
If you don't know who might post with no subject (or there are annoyingly many, especially if some are less than clueful), you could use the header match:
I also added header filters to immediately accept the message, but they still get held. Specifically, the rules I defined are: [...]
Those were all incorrect. What you want is
Header, Pattern, Action
subject, ^\s*([[{(]?no[_ ]subject[]})]?)?\s*$, Accept Immediately
I believe the surrounding whitespace is stripped, so the "\s*" are unnecessary but do no harm since they match 0 spaces. However this has two potential flaws: it doesn't work if there is no Subject field at all, and it allows anyone to bypass all of Mailman's checks.
Finally, there is the "pre-approved" mechanism. It's a little bit complicated because it requires setting a moderator password, which has to be done using the Python interpreter; there's no option in Postorius. It also requires a small bit of clue from the poster to add the password to the post, preferably in the header (but it can also be the first line). In either case the password is removed before distribution. For details, see
https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/rules/docs/...
Is there a better way to bypass this rule?
Each of the three approaches has advantages and disadvantages, so you'll have to decide.
-- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirus Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I have a mailing list that, due to specific circumstances, has a requirement to allow messages from a user that sends messages with no subject. Do you mean "any user who sends a message with no subject", or are
via Mailman-users writes: there specific users who do this? If there is one such user (or a handful), and you trust that user not to abuse the privilege, you can directly pre-approve that user from Users menu in the list configuration (see Mark's post for details). This also works if there is no Subject field at all! If you don't know who might post with no subject (or there are annoyingly many, especially if some are less than clueful), you could use the header match:
The address in question is from an automated process, so there's no immediate expectation that it will be abused, so I'm utilizing the recommendation that Mark provided. I'll see if that works as expected.
And, out of curiosity, why is the "accept_these_nonmembers" collection not applicable here? Is its use deprecated or is there a very particular use case for it?
""" While non-regexp addresses can be entered here, it is preferred to add the address as a nonmember and set the nonmember's Moderation to Default Processing. """
I should have paid more attention to this part.
Thanks!
On 2025-04-04 20:03:32 -0000 (-0000), via Mailman-users wrote: [...]
And, out of curiosity, why is the "accept_these_nonmembers" collection not applicable here? [...]
As the name implies, it's for *nonmembers* of the list, so does not apply to list members (subscribers). When you referred to the sender as a "user" that may have been taken to mean a list member.
-- Jeremy Stanley
On 4/4/25 13:03, via Mailman-users wrote:
And, out of curiosity, why is the "accept_these_nonmembers" collection not applicable here? Is its use deprecated or is there a very particular use case for it?
*_these_nonmembers is an artifact from Mailman 2.1 and its use in Mailman 3 for individual email addresses is deprecated in favor of setting the moderation action for a non-member. It is still useful in Mailman 3 for regexps and the @fqdn_listname functions.
However, It can still be used with an individual email address, but it doesn't work for you because a match in accept_these_nonmembers is equivalent to a moderation_action of Defer, not Accept. This is consistent with how it worked in Mailman 2.1.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (4)
-
dlb-ml＠anl.gov -
Jeremy Stanley -
Mark Sapiro -
Stephen J. Turnbull