FAQ
Apologies if this is a FAQ ... yadda yadda ... searched wiki, list
archive, FAQs, even the documentation :)

I've got some rude users who occasionally cc non-list members on their
messages to a restricted list that is actually intended to be private
(membership by invitation only). Then, as you might expect, when the
non-member replies, that message is rejected or held for approval. This
doesn't seem friendly.

The root cause, though, is my users. I'd therefore like to train them
:) by rejecting their posts that copy non-members.

A natural spot for such an option would seem to be in Recipient filters,
but I don't see anything there, nor in the rest of the options for that
matter.
The mailing list discussions around non-members seem to have been
dominated by discussion of messages from them, not to them.

Is there such an option, to reject messages that are {to,cc}
non-members? Or suggestions?

Apologies again if this is obvious or a FAQ that I've somehow missed.

thanks

glen

Search Discussions

  • Mark Sapiro at Nov 26, 2009 at 1:18 am

    glen martin wrote:
    I've got some rude users who occasionally cc non-list members on their
    messages to a restricted list that is actually intended to be private
    (membership by invitation only). Then, as you might expect, when the
    non-member replies, that message is rejected or held for approval. This
    doesn't seem friendly.

    The root cause, though, is my users. I'd therefore like to train them
    :) by rejecting their posts that copy non-members.

    A natural spot for such an option would seem to be in Recipient filters,
    but I don't see anything there, nor in the rest of the options for that
    matter.

    Actually, the best you can do is Recipient filters. If you set
    require_explicit_destination to Yes and max_num_recipients to 2, any
    post which is not explicitly addressed to and only to the list will be
    held.

    I.e. the list (or an acceptable alias) must be an explicit recipient or
    the post will be held for implicit destination, and if there are 2 or
    more explicit recipients, the post will be held for too many
    recipients.

    If you want more such as rejecting rather that holding the post and
    accepting other explicit recipients as long as they are list members,
    you will need a custom handler (see the FAQ at
    <http://wiki.list.org/x/l4A9>).


    Keep in mind that whatever you do may be futile. If the 'rude' members
    are insistent, they will quickly learn to Bcc: their non-member
    recipients, and there's no way you'll even see that, at least until
    the Bcc'd non-members reply.

    Also, list members with more than one email address may legitimately
    Cc: one of their other addresses that isn't a list member.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Terri Oda at Nov 26, 2009 at 5:32 am

    Mark Sapiro wrote:
    glen martin wrote:
    The root cause, though, is my users. I'd therefore like to train them
    :) by rejecting their posts that copy non-members.
    Actually, the best you can do is Recipient filters. If you set
    require_explicit_destination to Yes and max_num_recipients to 2, any
    post which is not explicitly addressed to and only to the list will be
    held.
    This also has the side effect of "training" (or annoying) your users who
    don't have "reply to list" buttons in their mail clients. Which may be
    a reasonable side effect, or a really annoying one, depending on your
    list members. When we did something similar for related reasons, the
    cries of joy and the cries of anguish pretty much cancelled each other
    out, but your mileage may vary.

    Terri
  • Adam McGreggor at Nov 26, 2009 at 1:33 am

    On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 08:42:50AM -0800, glen martin wrote:
    I've got some rude users who occasionally cc non-list members on their
    messages to a restricted list that is actually intended to be private
    (membership by invitation only).
    Suspend 'em from posting to the list for a breach of list protocol?
    Then, as you might expect, when the
    non-member replies, that message is rejected or held for approval. This
    doesn't seem friendly.

    The mailing list discussions around non-members seem to have been
    dominated by discussion of messages from them, not to them.

    Is there such an option, to reject messages that are {to,cc}
    non-members? Or suggestions?
    Bit tricky, that one, as presumably, you're not in charge of the
    sending-mail machine.

    what I would do is something like an ACL at SMTP time on the Mailman
    machine, to the effect of determining:
    * is the sender a list-member
    * is there any address that's not the list address in the to/cc
    header

    and if both conditions are true, then send an appropriate SMTP error
    to the sender, discarding the mail.

    Now, as for the first part, how you implement that will probably
    depend on the size of the list, and which MTA you're using; you might
    find periodically dumping the output of list_members for that/those
    lists into a directory and searching through that, or dynamically
    checking against the list (config/membership info), or using a wrapper
    or some other method.

    The second condition is trivial, with any knowledge of your MTA's
    ACLs.

    As for the not-friendly aspect, one approach might be to test inbound
    mail, destined for the lists, for the existance of appropriate
    headers (perhaps In-Reply-To:/Message-ID:), and verify those that
    *you* use (or, indeed, add an X-Originated-From-FooBaa.com: header),
    and if that condition is met, and the sender's not a member of the
    list, to automagically add the Sender/From &c address to the allowed
    senders array for the list. Spoofing headers won't really help, but we
    all know that, anyhow, yes?

    This last 'idea' ( ^^^ )doesn't necessarily help in user-education,
    unless your list-members have the "X-Don't-Be-A-Dimwit:" header on
    display ;)

    [ ok, so how many of you went and checked ;) ]

    Those said, I do perverse things with mail-servers...

    (Exim is my MTA of preference, I think a few others prefer Postfix)

    --
    "what was asked of the Director in this case was not a statement of
    prosecuting policy but a proleptic grant of immunity from prosecution.
    That, I am quite satisfied, the Director had no power to give.?
    -- Bingham of Cornhill, R (Pretty) v DPP [2002] 1 AC 800
  • Geoff Shang at Nov 26, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, glen martin wrote:

    I've got some rude users who occasionally cc non-list members on their
    messages to a restricted list that is actually intended to be private
    (membership by invitation only). Then, as you might expect, when the
    non-member replies, that message is rejected or held for approval. This
    doesn't seem friendly.

    The root cause, though, is my users. I'd therefore like to train them :) by
    rejecting their posts that copy non-members.
    Just to make the point that rejecting such posts obviously wouldn't
    prevent them from reaching the off-list recipients that are being copied.
    But I assume you know this.

    Geoff.
  • Glen martin at Nov 26, 2009 at 9:52 pm
    Yah ... and responding to another note in the thread, it wouldn't stop
    them from using bcc. But I judge these errors to be lazy, not
    malicious. These users can easily send a note direct to other folks,
    even forwarding the email they sent to the list if that is what they
    really want to do. But it is easier for them to just add their other
    recipient to the one email, so that is what they do. Until this means
    their email doesn't get to the list at all, at which point the 'easy'
    solution is a different one. Or so I hope.

    Again responding to another suggestion in this thread, the use of
    recipient counts is an option I hadn't thought of. The potential
    problem here is I don't set a reply-to header, by and large their
    clients don't have reply-list, so they use reply-all to respond to the
    list. if we get a few messages deep into a thread, reply-all will go to
    the list plus a couple of earlier senders, which will confuse the
    recipient count. Hmmm, maybe this would work if duplicate addressees
    are removed earlier than the count filter.

    The smtp solution was one I really hadn't considered, and while I'm sure
    it could work, it seems very brute force. It seems to me that this is
    something that should be configured for the list, not in postfix where
    it gets involved in all mail handling.

    I'm thinking about a custom handler ... it doesn't look like a hard
    problem, just loop through the recipient list (recips), and look up
    whether each of them is a list member. Reject on failure, fall through
    and pass. The hardest part will be figuring out now python works ...

    Thanks to everyone for the responses and suggestions so far, much
    appreciated.


    Geoff Shang wrote:
    On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, glen martin wrote:

    I've got some rude users who occasionally cc non-list members on
    their messages to a restricted list that is actually intended to be
    private (membership by invitation only). Then, as you might expect,
    when the non-member replies, that message is rejected or held for
    approval. This doesn't seem friendly.

    The root cause, though, is my users. I'd therefore like to train
    them :) by rejecting their posts that copy non-members.
    Just to make the point that rejecting such posts obviously wouldn't
    prevent them from reaching the off-list recipients that are being
    copied. But I assume you know this.

    Geoff.

    ------------------------------------------------------
    Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
    Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
    Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
    Searchable Archives:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
    Unsubscribe:
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/glenm%40locutory.org
  • Mark Sapiro at Nov 26, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    glen martin wrote:
    I'm thinking about a custom handler ... it doesn't look like a hard
    problem, just loop through the recipient list (recips), and look up
    whether each of them is a list member. Reject on failure, fall through
    and pass. The hardest part will be figuring out now python works ...

    If you want to do this as a "learn Python and Mailman" exercise, that's
    great, but if you just want to get it done, I can suggest some code.
    Let me know.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Shop at " Just Brits " at Nov 26, 2009 at 11:26 pm
    Glen, as my Lists are behind a cPanel install of MM
    normally I have nothing to add G<> !!

    <<Thanks to everyone for the responses and suggestions so far,
    much appreciated. >>

    However in this case, maybe I can. I have a dozen or
    so small Lists [all under 100 folks] that are basically
    private. As I set-up the 4th or 5th I HAD learned of
    just your sort of problem. Therefore, I ADDED to
    the "Welcome" mail a paragraph TELLING subscribers
    what WILL happen when they pull stunts like you are
    having occur. Also, that Bcc'ing will have similiar
    results.

    Even tho a couple of Lists are 'paying' customers I am
    VERY strong in my verbage <G> !!!!!

    The 'results' are that the problem has become a NON-
    problem.

    Another prob I ran into early on was folks just blindly
    using the "Reply-All" function therefore if I had made
    the orginal post I would get TWO replies. I nipped THAT
    in the bud VERY quickly. LOL If you notice, YOU are
    only getting this message via the List <G> because I DO
    know how to Edit the "Reply-All".

    Best....

    Ed
    Please visit MY site at:
    www.justbrits.com
  • LuKreme at Nov 27, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    On 26-Nov-2009, at 16:26, Shop at Just Brits wrote:
    Another prob I ran into early on was folks just blindly
    using the "Reply-All" function therefore if I had made
    the orginal post I would get TWO replies. I nipped THAT
    in the bud VERY quickly.

    I'd much rather get two replies than what some lists do which is not send me a copy if they see I 'already got one' in the Cc or To headers. I REALLY hate that.

    This list, for example.

    --
    Over 3,500 gay marriages and, what, no hellfire? I was promise
    hellfire. And riots. What gives? -- Mark Morford
  • Mark Sapiro at Nov 27, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    LuKreme wrote:
    I'd much rather get two replies than what some lists do which is not send me a copy if they see I 'already got one' in the Cc or To headers. I REALLY hate that.

    This list, for example.

    It's a user option (at least on Mailman lists) -

    Avoid duplicate copies of messages?

    When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list
    message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing
    list. Select Yes to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list;
    select No to receive copies.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • LuKreme at Nov 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    On 27-Nov-2009, at 11:37, Mark Sapiro wrote:
    LuKreme wrote:
    I'd much rather get two replies than what some lists do which is not send me a copy if they see I 'already got one' in the Cc or To headers. I REALLY hate that.

    This list, for example.

    It's a user option (at least on Mailman lists) -

    Avoid duplicate copies of messages?
    Yep, but I've set it at least twice for this list and I still find it getting set back. But that said, some Mailman lists have a setting that lets you set the Reply-To: on your posts so that when people reply, it goes ONLY to the list, as $DEITY intended.


    --
    Love seekest only self to please, To bind another to its delight
    Joys in another's loss of ease And builds a hell in Heaven's
    despite!
  • Mark Sapiro at Nov 27, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    LuKreme wrote:
    Yep, but I've set it at least twice for this list and I still find it getting set back.

    I don't know why that would happen.

    But that said, some Mailman lists have a setting that lets you set the Reply-To: on your posts so that when people reply, it goes ONLY to the list, as $DEITY intended.

    Our recommendations are to not strip the poster's Reply-To: if any and
    to not add any other Reply-To: addresses. This list is set that way so
    you can add your own Reply-To: and it will be passed through.

    List owners can set these as they see fit, but I don't see why anyone
    would choose to strip the poster's Reply-To: if they weren't adding
    one of their own.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Mark Sapiro at Nov 27, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Ed wrote:
    Another prob I ran into early on was folks just blindly
    using the "Reply-All" function therefore if I had made
    the orginal post I would get TWO replies.

    In some cases at least, this is a good thing. E.g.,

    - The poster is not a list member and would not otherwise see the reply.

    - The poster is a digest member and wouldn't otherwise see the reply for
    some time.

    The typical list member is not able to know whether a poster is a
    regular or digest member or even a list member at all.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupmailman-users @
categoriespython
postedNov 25, '09 at 4:42p
activeNov 27, '09 at 7:49p
posts13
users7
websitelist.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase