At 22:15 -0700 10/19/2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
BTW: Have you checked Mutt's behaviour yet? Could/would someone
check Outlook's behaviour?
Eudora 5.1 beta for Mac OS X (wherein I am at the moment) honors multiple
address Reply-To: headers. It's highly likely that Eudora has done so from
the
At 1:39 -0500 10/31/2001, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
One more question. I realize the docs say never to mess with Defaults.py,
but use the mm_cfg.py. What happens if you do mess with Defaults.py? Are
modules somehow linked to certain byte offsets in it that, if modified,
makes things go boom?
When
At 9:58 +0900 10/10/2001, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Yes, this is probably the right solution. In fact, I'm actually
leaning towards suggesting that Mailman just come with or depend
upon hypermail for archiving; we're just re-inventing the wheel
by trying to modify pipermail over and over, and it's
At 2:18 -0500 12/1/01, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
I'm more concerned with the user who fills up his disk and doesn't
notice it for a week because they're on vacation. I'd like Mailman to
be robust against this, and I think the average non-deliveries over a
couple of weeks, with consignment to
At 14:18 -0500 12/7/2001, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
Speaking of Exim.. one thing that really bothers me about Exim is the
message(s) it sends when it has to wait to deliver the message... these
would be interpreted as bounces, although they really are not. I've seen
a few such messages, only to have
At 13:20 -0800 1/23/2002, John W Baxter wrote:
[Off-list deliberately...OK to quote back onto the list if for some odd
reason you want to.]
Aargh...fortunately, there was no reason aside from off-topicness for me to
try to send off-list.
--John
--
John Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Port
I see the basic how do I let the right people post to this announce list
automatically question often enough to indicate that there is a perceived
need.
Let's put digital signature technology to work.
For some post 2.1 release (and probably patchable into 2.1 by suitable
people), extend the
At 7:12 -0500 2/18/2002, Damien Morton wrote:
There are several approaches to this, including
the use of javascript email decryptors and/or publishing email addresses
as rendered images.
I don't think we can assume that the user who feels a need to send mail to
the admin has a JavaScript-capable
At 10:15 -0800 2/20/2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
That, basically, allows us to stuff mailtos somewhere pointing to an address
you can mail to to report site failures. I'll even go farther and say that
address can simply be on a web page, not linked to a Mailto, and if you
really, reallly want,
At 13:42 -0800 2/20/2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
And any decent library also has a rare books room, which IS tightly locked
up. And while the content of a mail list qualifies as a public library to
some degree, the subscriber addresses live in that rare book room.
At least in Chuq's context, in
At 20:36 -0500 2/20/2002, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
[Quoting Chuq]
See above. You don't get the analogy right.
[Jay]
No, I merely don't value the email address's privacy as highly as you
do. I get about 50 spam a day in 200 new messages including about 14
mailing lists -- I'm entitled to hold
At 0:08 -0500 2/21/2002, Dale Newfield wrote:
If the question and answer can be arbitary on a site by site, or better,
hit by hit basis, then it becomes infeasible to build a spambot to enter
such sites.
If it's arbitrary, it's generated by some algorithm. If it's generated by
some
At 23:15 -0500 2/20/2002, Dale Newfield wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
I still think the email-address-as-jpeg solution is prohibitively
expensive to reverse; effectively impossible for machines, entirely easy
for people.
...
It can't be enlarged for people that have poor
At 10:55 -0800 2/27/2002, Dan Mick wrote:
wrong was misstated; what I meant to say was the user is not
part of Mailman.
But the user is part of the mailing list system. Usually the most
troublesome part.
--John
--
John Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Port Ludlow, WA, USA
At 16:14 -0800 3/6/2002, James J. Besemer wrote:
Another faction doesn't object to HTML per se except that the text in such
messages (for them)
appear in too small a font and they can't figure out how to change it.
Happens to me a lot since I read mail on my Macs, and a sensible size on a
At 12:15 -0500 3/8/2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
It would be really cool if we could get a bunch of MTA authors
together (I only care about the open source ones wink) to define a
protocol for letting the MTA doing the stitching. I think Postfix,
and probably Exim support a way to do this for the
At 23:31 +0100 3/8/2002, Fil wrote:
Sometimes you want to try and stress things, just to give beta feedback to
Barry. I've shown a problem with computing all VERPed messages before
sending (as opposed to *while sending*), I'm quite happy with that being in
a beta (or alpha) moment before the much
At 15:01 -0800 3/8/2002, James J. Besemer wrote:
However you characterize them, don't you agree they are the future
(which was
the main point of my sentence)? For better or worse, I detect an inexorable
trend.
Trend, yes. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I don't think inexorable.
Counter
At 18:56 -0800 3/18/2002, Dan Mick wrote:
RFC 2822 rules on the number of specific headers a message can have.
E.g. it can have many Received: headers, but only one Reply-To: header
(although the latter allows for multiple addresses... go figure).
Ease of parsing. No one but humans typically
At 8:19 -0500 3/29/2002, Mentor Cana wrote:
With the latest CVS, whenever list's configuration changes (i.e. new headers
or footers) a bin/mailmanctl restart is needed.
This could confuse lists owners who expect (rightfully so) to see the
changed footers or headers on their lists as soon as they
At 16:28 -0700 4/16/2002, Marc MERLIN wrote:
I'm not saying that mailman is incorrect on the interpretation of the RFC,
I'm saying that if mailman feeds an incorrect Email address or something
that causes the MTA to reject the mail, it will endlessly spam all the
subscribers that are
At 18:04 -0400 4/19/2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
...
specifically, we seem to exhaust our open file limit about every 3rd
or 4th day.
...
It's disturbing and
we'll have to do something about it, although hopefully not as drastic
as reverting to Exim3. I'm just wondering if any other Exim4 users
At 14:35 -0700 4/23/2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
I just got sent a new copy of the Klez.E virus. The text it sends to the
user is this:
--
Klez.E is the most common world-wide spreading worm.It's very dangerous by
corrupting your files.
Ah...there's one now. It came in a text/html part, with
At 13:38 -0400 5/9/2002, Ron Jarrell wrote:
Ok, I got another instance (that makes 5 I've seen now) of mailman
sticking the headers into the body of the note..
There were extremely abbreviated headers, a blank line, a mangled header,
and then the rest of the headers in the body of the note.
The
At 1:00 -0400 5/10/2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
JWB == John W Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JWB Interesting...my Python 2.2.1 on Mac OS X does include those
JWB modules (and issues a deprecation warning upon import at the
JWB interpreter command line). I didn't do anything
I propose that the Replybot not send responses to any message marked
Precedence: bulk unless there is a corresponding X-Ack: yes
header.
Should that be expanded by adding Precedence: junk ?
--John
--
John Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Port Ludlow, WA, USA
At 23:21 -0400 5/22/2002, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:27:58PM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
...
So, you need to fix host_name (and probably web_page_url). Only the
former can be changed on the General admin page. Both of course can
be changed via withlist.
Or I can
Greg Westin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sent this question to the mailman-users list and got no response, so I
thought maybe I should try here. I don't know if this is a problem
because I'm a novice at these UNIX installations, or if there's
something wrong with the Darwin installer:
I haven't
At 12:37 +0100 7/12/2002, Robert Crosbie wrote:
John W Baxter hath declared on Thursday the 11 day of July 2002 :-:
Greg Westin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sent this question to the mailman-users list and got no response, so I
thought maybe I should try here. I don't know
At 17:46 -0400 7/16/2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
CVR == Chuq Von Rospach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CVR Problem is, many users don't know how. And one could argue
CVR who ought to solve this problem. Should users be forced to
CVR jump through hoops to use a mail list safely? Or is it
At 20:49 -0400 7/16/2002, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
But *why isn't this the recipients' problem*?
Because the recipient gives up, and takes her ISP payments elsewhere, or
really gives up and takes them nowhere (which I'm tempted to do myself when
I retire).
--John
--
John Baxter [EMAIL
Bob Puff@NLE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not to get too far OT here but...
I've seen the next generation of spammer software at work recently.
Spammer's machine makes direct SMTP connection to my box, gives MY address
as the FROM:, TO:, and
REPLY-TO:. This bypasses all the open relay testing, and would
At 21:02 -0600 7/29/2002, Jason R. Mastaler wrote:
In a perfect universe, you'd have a global
whitelist containing the address of every non-spammer on the planet.
In a perfect universe, there would be no spammers on the planet. ;-)
--John
--
John W. Baxter Port Ludlow, WA, USA
set
At 19:53 -0700 7/29/2002, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
If you generate an image containing the entire e-mail address, it
can be made extremely hard to read, even with state-of-the-art OCR.
It also becomes hard to read for those who don't have their browser
download images.
Plus you have to avoid typical
At 13:10 -0700 8/16/2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Take a look at this --
http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
It's a new technique for identifying spam. The more I look into the details,
the more I think we have the anti-spam killer app, becaues it tunes itself
to the individual (or site),
At 9:37 -0500 11/8/2002, Dale Newfield wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Admin pages HTML does not set TEXT color
Why is it mailman's job to protect stupid users from their own browser
settings?
This one sounded like it was posted not from a stupid user but from a
careful
At 1:02 -0500 11/20/2002, Phil Barnett wrote:
Sending passwords as plaintext in 2002 is downright negligent considering the
current state of sniffing, monitoring and penetration.
So...we stop calling them passwords.
--John
--
John Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Port Ludlow, WA, USA
At 23:28 -0500 1/1/2003, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
JWB == John W Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JWB Since HerName *can* be a different account than is
JWB hername, I think we're stuck, even though it almost never
JWB is. When there is a sitewide database of Mailman
JWB users
At 11:49 +0100 1/3/2003, Fil wrote:
SB I've recently discovered that vacation autoresponders will
SB subscribe recipients to Mailman lists when they get invited.
Dang. This is because the From address contains the confirmation
cookie encoded in the address. This might kill this idea
At 10:21 -0400 8/28/2003, Barry Warsaw wrote:
In additon to the full subscription option there could perhaps be a thread
subscription which would subscribe the sender to only receive mails from the
thread started by him/her. This might become somewhat heavy though.
It's a great idea that's
At 22:42 +0200 8/28/2003, Brad Knowles wrote:
There is already the option Should the list moderators get
immediate notice of new requests, as well as daily notices about
collected ones?, which I was very grateful to be able to turn off.
Perhaps more useful the list admin could set periods
On 9/13/2003 18:45, Phil Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 06 September 2003 6:15 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to retrieve my complete list of subscriber (i'm using mailman)
in a text file but i don't know how to do it, can someone help me please ?
(i've more than
In Mailman 2.1.1, the mass subscription page has this text under the
textbox, introducing the Choose File button
or specify a file to upload:
I just talked with a not-dumb list owner who selected an Excel file,
producing a wonderful list of 22 non-deletable, non-modifiable entries,
which had
On 3/15/2004 11:11, Chuq Von Rospach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and I don't have a good answer for that, not at all. not sure how to
close that hole offhand. we made it easy to figure out it IS a list, we
show an address that the virus can tell has posting privs -- and we do
no validation that
On 3/30/2004 8:01, lp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone knows the regex string that defines any mail address
reagrdless of what stands before and after @, please give me an exact
example of the string.
Well, the first edition of Mastering Regular Expressions by Jeffrey E. F.
Friedl (spelled
On 7/1/2004 9:57, J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:46:47 -0700
somuchfun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
J.C., I agree with you that there is never a right time. BUT, when
introducing a new feature (like mailman did with the VERP bounce
probes) it is wise to have the
Version of Mailman? System on which you're running?
Assuming Linux, what is the third (last) line of
cat /etc/adjtime
I expect either LOCAL or UTC...our Mailman machine has UTC, and--which I had
never noticed--is an hour ahead on the From lines in the archive. Hmmm.
Mailman 2.1.2; RedHat 9
On 10/15/2004 22:52, Tokio Kikuchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I want to ask 'nimda.txt' in the tests/msgs directory is of
any use in the mailman source code. None of the test scripts refer
to this file. I even did find . | xargs grep nimda only to get
Binary file ./tests/msgs matches. If
On 10/16/2004 14:13, David Relson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:52:15 -0700
John W. Baxter wrote:
...[snip]...
You might want to refer folks who want to run test virus messages
through their Mailman system (system = the MTA and its filtering and
Mailman and whatever
On 11/20/2004 13:26, Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:22 AM -0500 Steven Kuck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As I said, I can guarantee messages from the future are wrong. Disagree?
Perhaps messages from more than a day (or N days) in the past could be
On 12/1/2004 6:05, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no problems requiring Python 2.4 for Mailman 2.2, although I
would like to get some feedback from the community before we decide for
sure. I wouldn't be opposed to requiring at least Python 2.3, but I
definitely think we should
OK, that subject might hit a filter somewhere. ;-)
Mark Shapiro wrote in another thread, in mailman-users:
If you haven't changed SMTP_LOG_EACH_FAILURE in mm_cfg.py,
the 3 failures should be logged in Mailman's smtp-failure log.
Which prompted me to look there, and find
Jan 18 14:47:56 2005
On 1/21/2005 14:06, Mark Sapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John W. Baxter wrote:
A quick grep in the source didn't reveal a case where Mailman attempts to
send mail to the unqualified recipient administrator. Does anyone happen
to know where it is?
I don't know, but is it possible
On 1/21/2005 13:31, Tokio Kikuchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
think I can add some code before the 2.1.6 final release to exchage
Re: and prefix order for the subject prefix without numbering. (Yes, we
now have a nice feature to add numbering in the subject prefix.)
Can you do the same for
I used to be careful about saving my passwords for all the lists [Mailman*]
I am subscribed to. I no longer bother...I request the mail out of the
password if I need it (very rare).
If the situation becomes a choice of
1. mail out the password becomes generate a new time-limited password and
On 2/12/2005 6:02, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 02:07, Bob Puff wrote:
So let me ask this: if we drop passwords for everything but the private
archives, do we really need to do anything differently than the format
currently in place? Do they really need to be
On 2/27/2005 17:46, Preston Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I read some old post back in 2002 on this list about Load balancing. In my
scenario I don't have near the volume to warrant load balancing but I am
interested in fail over capabilities. Would it cause Mailman any heartburn
On 3/4/2005 9:37, Nigel Metheringham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 12:11 -0500, Bryan Fullerton wrote:
Is there an updated timeline for the final 2.1.6 release? It won't be
in February... :)
Is there a booking form for Guido's time machine?
Of course it will be in
On 3/19/2005 23:43, Sylvain Beucler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Savane uses the PHP mail() function, that executes the local
sendmail-compatible command.
At both GNU Savannah (savannah.gnu.org) and Gna! (gna.org), we use the
Exim version packaged by Debian. In both cases, the mail we receive
On 8/31/05 8:11 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the very least, we must drop Python 2.1 and 2.2. Neither of those
versions are being supported any longer and I will definitely not claim
to have tested the current code base on either version in a very long
time. If we must
On 10/24/05 5:28 PM, Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Base-64 would let you get two characters creating no more than
4096 hash subdirectories, and you can see the numbers above for the
likely reduction in the number of grandchild subdirectories/files.
Base 64 isn't a good idea for code
On 10/26/05 6:06 PM, Mark Sapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, it is not really doing the right thing because it is not
supposed to be aware of what's in the _BounceInfo class. The info that
is passed to it is a string representation of the _BounceInfo
instance, and it should really just
On 11/23/05 3:38 AM, Fil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately this still doesn't succeed reconnecting to the server: I get
this traceback:
File /var/local/mailman/Mailman/MysqlMemberships.py, line 141, in
_prodServerConnection
if self.connection.ping() == 0: OperationalError:
On 11/26/05 1:25 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Max == Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Max Is there any reason not to add web_page_url to the
Max configurable options in the admin GUI? Right below host_name
Max in the general category would be a good
On 12/14/05 3:32 PM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think mailman-developers
is a reasonable place to discuss this. We can talk about whether it's
even reasonable to have anti-spam defenses in Mailman, and if so whether
we want to pick one such product to support, or have a
On 12/31/05 5:02 AM, Tokio Kikuchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pleased to announce the release of GNU Mailman 2.1.7. This
is a significant release, which includes security enhancement
fixes, a new language (ia: Interlingua) support, a couple of new
features, and many bug fixes.
Well done!
On 1/1/06 1:22 AM, Tokio Kikuchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John W. Baxter wrote:
Shouldn't Mark Shapiro be recognized in the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS file now?
Yes. Mark Sapiro _is_ in the ACKNOWLEDEMENTS. I've just added his name
in top page of the http://mailman.sourceforge.net/ It'll
On 1/12/06 5:51 PM, Mark Sapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua Ginsberg wrote:
Perhaps an interesting compromise might be to add to config.pck a key
last_post whose value is a dictionary of email:time 9-tuple pairs.
That way, folks like Erling could write a script to go ahead and do this
On 3/27/06 3:48 PM, Mark Sapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, should these be site wide mm_cfg.py options or should they be
per-list options with a default from mm_cfg.py? In either case, the
Defaults.py setting would match current behavior.
[Other good thoughts deleted, as Mark knows what
On 4/28/06 6:06 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:46 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
If the previous value of the Sender: field is being lost, then
that should be corrected. At the very least, the value should be
saved in an Old-Sender: or Previous-Sender: or
On 4/29/06 8:00 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sender doesn't instruct *conformant* MTAs at all, does it? AFAIK the
only thing that a RFC 2821-conforming MTA looks at is the Return-Path
header, and it's supposed to remove that.
There is no Return-Path: header during
On 5/25/06 8:29 PM, Mark Sapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've thought about this some more and what I'm currently thinking is if
the topic regexp is multiline, leave it as is in topics, but before
compiling it for use, split the lines and then rejoin them with |,
and compile not in VERBOSE
On 6/6/06 9:23 AM, David Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This mixture of terminology seems to occur in other places also. You might
want to consider rationalising these to the same thing for the sake of
moderators who might be (say) secretarial staff.
Secretarial staff should have no problem
On 7/5/06 11:26 AM, emf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem I face is not when JavaScript is not active, the problem is
when JavaScript *is* active *and* behaves correctly - i.e. performs the
dom modification I've told it to - but the browser/screen reader doesn't
bother to tell the user.
On 7/5/06 4:30 PM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thinking something along the lines of sha1 hashing Message-ID and
perhaps Date. RFC 2822 $3.6 says that the only required headers are
the origination date (Date:) and originator address fields (From: and
possibly Sender: and
Javascript off.
David Andrews
At 01:54 PM 7/5/2006, John W. Baxter wrote:
On 7/5/06 11:26 AM, emf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem I face is not when JavaScript is not active, the problem is
when JavaScript *is* active *and* behaves correctly - i.e. performs the
dom modification I've told
On 8/14/06 5:42 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today, held messages still have to be approved by the moderator.
What I propose is to allow posters to self-moderate, simply by
verifying that their address is real. This probably means a
clickable link and (maybe) a header cookie for
On 9/17/06 8:01 PM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, what do you think about changing the way we hold messages for
digests? E.g. instead of putting them in an mbox file, where it's
more difficult to skip bad messages, stick them in a queue-like
directory and pull them from there.
On 9/28/06 1:11 AM, Nigel Metheringham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 23:25 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
LMTP is probably the best and most native method for both sendmail
and postfix. I can't speak for other MTAs.
Exim can do LMTP, over a pipe (ie fork/exec program), a
On 9/27/06 6:29 PM, Carson Gaspar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:54 AM -0400 Barry Warsaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then there is the question of what versions we support for Mailman
2.2, which is currently under development. Previously we've said
we'll
On 9/28/06 7:16 PM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look at the source, you'll see that the #! line is actually
@PYTHON@ which gets substituted by configure at build time. I forget
exactly why, but the standard #! /usr/bin/env python invocation
caused problems for people, so now
On 11/9/06 2:54 AM, Stefan Schlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another possible problem:
And yet another problem: the proliferation of different ways to create
signed messages, and recognizing them successfully.
I could sign messages at least three ways just using Apple's Mail.app:
GPG with a
On 12/29/06 2:17 PM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm about to merge my SQLAlchemy branch to the trunk. I'm happy
enough with where this is going to commit to this approach going
forward.
[Loud cheering from the sidelines!!]
(An upcoming rewrite of our mail handling system will
On 2/1/07 5:46 PM, Bob Puff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have demime in front of most of my larger lists, and I can tell you from
casual peeks at the incoming copy that I keep, there are far too many people
who send html email.
Anyone using Windows machine, or a Mac starting with Tiger who
On 2/6/07 5:51 PM, Bob Puff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a bad DK isn't bad, then how is this supposed to help spam? I mean, if the
mere presence of some signature in the headers will increase the likelihood of
an email being delivered (or at least help it NOT be tagged as spam), surely
the
On 2/7/07 7:32 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either they have a milter that refuses to
resign or they have a working milter. If their milter doesn't
resign, then less harm is done by stripping the header. If their
milter does resign, then less harm is done by allowing it to
On 2/7/07 8:46 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we strip DKIM by default or not?
Not strip by default.
Even though that changes the default vs the most recent Mailman, it leaves
the default alone for everyone who jumps to 2.1.10 from earlier versions.
--John
On 2/7/07 9:19 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTOH, how many people would smell something fishy if this
message had this header:
From: Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With many MUAs (including the vast majority of different MUA programs and
versions) that would pass totally
On 2/8/07 10:27 AM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Me too. Here's my discussion on the topic, including a concrete
proposal for Mailman 2.1.10 and 2.2/3.0. Feel free to comment on the
wiki on in this thread.
http://wiki.list.org/x/OgM
Looks good to me.
IOW, a valid signed
89 matches
Mail list logo
