patch

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:08 +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> Attachments?  The bounced posts didn't contain any.  The only difference
> I can see between the one which passed and those which didn't is the
> presence of a very long 'References:' header and a 'In-Reply-To:' header
> containing two message-ids.  Dunno why any of these is suspicious
> though.

Oh yeah, sorry. Messages with 'In-Reply-To' or 'References' headers but
without 'Re:' in the subject are considered suspicious because some
people like to screw up threading by replying to an existing list post
and editing the subject line when they should have just composed a new
message, not a reply.

Messages with 'Re:' in the subject line but neither References nor In-
Reply-To headers are also considered suspicious, because they're
probably _intended_ as a reply but sent from a broken MUA which breaks
the threading. Or they're spam, which often does the same trick of
having 'Re:' in the subject line to make it look like a reply to
something you've sent.

Neither of those is particularly relevant on a list which is as quiet as
this one, so I suppose we could turn them off. Or we could just avoid
doing it most of the time, and manually approve messages occasionally.

-- 
dwmw2