>>>>> "BF" == Bryan Fullerton <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
BF> My mail system won't allow unqualifed addresses to come in thru SMTP,
BF> so I wouldn't expect Mj to ever have to deal with that except when I'm
BF> trying to break it. Not everyone may have their inbound SMTP setup
BF> that way, though.
Ahh, but if it breaks when you're trying, it will eventually break when
you're not. I'll take a stab at fixing this for good when I get off of
work, although this evening is looking increasingly crowded.
BF> In the event that Mj somehow does receive a message from a broken
BF> address, I'd expect it to bounce to either the list owner or to the
BF> majordomo owner.
That's a tough one. We have to assume that a syntactically incorrect
address is something we can't respond to, so for messages to majordomo or
list-request or any individual command aliases we should ignore the request
and warn the list owner. Messages sent to resend are another matter,
though. I suppose I could set a flag that you can check for in
access_rules if the address is invalid, but for backwards compatibility it
should pass the message on as long as it doesn't fail any other check.
Otherwise people who are misguided enough to spam-guard messages to mailing
lists will be allowed to post before an upgrade but will be denied after