On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 18:01 +0200, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
> > Mail sent on behalf of a group, such as mail from a committee or from
> > the multiple authors of a paper, where you want people's individual
> > addresses and names exposed
>
> But surely that does not require multiple From lines, l
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:06 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> What's the legitimate use case for multiple From headers?
Mail sent on behalf of a group, such as mail from a committee or from
the multiple authors of a paper, where you want people's individual
addresses and names exposed (or you can't cre
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 15:03 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Of course, some things have to involve Mailman (eg, filtering posts on
> list membership). But even there, the developers consider it a design
> bug that Mailman has no way to export its member database to filtering
> software at the
Thanks very much, Mark; this is exactly what I needed to know!
> To answer your question, put a regexp like
>
> (?s)\nFrom:.*\nFrom:
>
> in Privacy options... -> Spam filters -> header_filter_rules. These
> regexps are searched in IGNORECASE and MULTILINE mode. The (?s) will
> set DOTALL (dot ma
On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 23:44 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Do you mean to say that the people at CSAIL ought to switch to using
> SpamAssasin instead of filtering in Mailman?
We *are* using SpamAssassin *as well as* filtering in Mailman.
> Jay, do you see a reason not to do it that way?
There
Hi. I had been noting with trepidation the recent rise in spam mail
with multiple spoofed From: lines, e.g.,
From: m...@example.net
From: y...@example.net
From: l...@example.net
To: l...@example.net
since that drastically increases the chances of any given spam message
having a spoofed From: lin
On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 17:32 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
> > One way to do this would be if the 'forward' box is checked and the
> > action is 'reject' the forwarded message would be a multipart/mixed
> > message with a text/plain part containing the reject reason and a
> > mes
> Thanks for the reply. I have checked and double checked and
> li...@example.com is not a member of li...@example.com in the membership
> list. Is there any other place I should check? From what I can tell
> that is "the" list of members. [...]
> Do you think this could be an MTA problem (exim
