Peter Shute writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The DMARC WG advocates putting list-post in From in place
of a DMARC p=reject address. I advocate accepting their
advice for stock Mailman, and avoiding other non-conforming
workarounds until the market demands them. If it
Hi everyone,
I had this issue with MM 2.1.16 and the listname/members?start=(email) URL:
it would display the message Error: The form lifetime has expired. (request
forgery check) at the top of the page.
Dug in my archives and found this reference:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Odhiambo
On 7 May 2014, at 4:07 pm, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Peter Shute writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The DMARC WG advocates putting list-post in From in place
of a DMARC p=reject address. I advocate accepting their
advice for stock Mailman, and avoiding other
Le 06/05/2014 20:30, Mark Sapiro a écrit :
was written immediately after that message was queued by gate_news in
Mailman's incoming queue, so it was delivered to the list.
I don't understand what happened really, because the messages where *archived*
but not délivered to the list!!
as the
Peter Shute writes:
Thanks, I understand now. If the result of this is that replies go
to everyone on the list, this is something we don't want for our
list. Private replies becoming public means trouble, and we have
enough of it already when people Reply All by accident.
In that case,
On 2014-05-03 23:55, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I can't say more about what to do without actually seeing your
MemberAdaptor, however you might look at
https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/558106 for an alternative.
That was actually my starting point to develop my MemberAdapter. I did
not use it
On 05/06/2014 11:44 PM, Fil wrote:
Hi everyone,
I had this issue with MM 2.1.16 and the listname/members?start=(email)
URL: it would display the message Error: The form lifetime has expired.
(request forgery check) at the top of the page.
And what generates that URL? Do you have a local
On May 7, 2014, at 8:59 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
which leaves the Reply-To header as it finds it. Finally, set
'personalize' to 'Full Personalization'
which puts the recipient in To. The first two are on the General
Options page, the last on the Nondigest
On 05/07/2014 07:15 AM, Viktor wrote:
You are right, it is mailman 2.1.13-5, I am running a debian server.
After upgrading to debian wheezy with mailman 2.1.15-1, the problem
seems fixed.
Good.
P.S: It is not wise to register to a mailing list using the address of
another mailing list.
Rob Lingelbach writes:
Is it possible the ‘personalize’ option moved elsewhere in
2.1.18-1? I’ve just updated to that version and don’t see it on
the Nondigest Options page.
Sorry, I haven't updated to 2.1.18-1 yet, I'm reading source and
missed a crucial qualification at the top of the
On May 7, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Because personalization can consume a lot of resources, the site admin
needs to enable personalization with OWNERS_CAN_ENABLE_PERSONALIZATION
in mm_cfg.py, then it will show up on the admin site.
Thanks. Impressive.
On 5/7/14, 12:08 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
What is the intent of the restriction? Are you trying to get the
users to use reply to author by punishing them with a black hole if
they don't, and then set Reply-To to list-post so that nobody ever
gets a personal reply? Or is this intended
Mark Sapiro Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:22:28 -0700
On 04/30/2014 04:35 AM, Jacques Setton wrote:
Currently, when choosing a specific local language (French in our case)
for
Mailman' lists user interface, I have noticed that the standard home page
(for example the one depicted by
On 7 May 2014, at 11:59 pm, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Peter Shute writes:
Thanks, I understand now. If the result of this is that replies go
to everyone on the list, this is something we don't want for our
list. Private replies becoming public means trouble, and we
From: t...@yingtong.co.uk
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:46:03 +0100
I have it working with Fudforum and although the fudforum integration was (to
me) poorly documented I got it working and has been stable / rock solid for a
couple of years now.
It would be nice to get things like membership
On 05/07/2014 12:45 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
It's ridiculous. And I want to know why, exactly, Yahoo Groups isn't
being affected by this. They're not doing the via YahooGroup bit, or
wrapping their mails. :-\ I'm betting they're not even honoring the
DMARC from other providers.
Yahoo groups
On 05/07/2014 01:34 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
Am I correct in believing that there is now an option to have these modified
behaviours only apply to messages from p=reject senders?
Yes. At least in the latest release (2.1.18-1), there is
dmarc_moderation_action which selects an action to apply
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.net wrote:
We are trying to talk with DMARC proponents,
You won't be successful until those people themselves figure out what
they are doing (and then they agree to quit using the Internet as a
testbed) :-) Honestly, they (one of the
On 05/07/2014 03:41 PM, Jon 1234 wrote:
I’d be very grateful for comments on the Mailman withlist scripts I’ve used:
(a) will they still work when I upgrade to 2.1.18-1? and (b) is there a better
way of doing it? Thanks in advance, and feel free to ask for further
information!
#!
On 05/07/2014 04:50 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
On the other hand, it is a bit of overkill to do these as withlist
scripts because of the withlist setup and takedown. You could, e.g., do
something like
#! /path/to/bin/python
import sys
import paths
from Mailman import MailList
from
Mark Sapiro wrote:
Am I correct in believing that there is now an option to
have these modified behaviours only apply to messages from
p=reject senders?
Yes. At least in the latest release (2.1.18-1), there is
dmarc_moderation_action which selects an action to apply only
to
Glenn Sieb writes:
What my list owners want out of my lists, and what rules they
decide on for their lists, is not my business. By extension, it is
not yours.
If you just want to vent, please say so. I thought you were asking
for help.
If you want help, then the questions I asked are
Jim Popovitch writes:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.net wrote:
We are trying to talk with DMARC proponents,
You won't be successful until those people themselves figure out what
they are doing
That's true, but those folks (or, more accurately, their bosses)
Peter Shute writes:
So does this mean that any solution is going to be a choice between
ease of replying to the list and ease of accidental replying to the
list?
Yes, and that's an unsolvable problem. Some replies should be public,
some should be private, and only the user can know which
Peter Shute writes:
If it means that Reply vs Reply All work differently for list
messages from different domains,
It does.
will it only lead to users becoming hopelessly confused? Is there
anyone who's already using this who could report on the reactions
from users?
Good question.
My experience is that for most lists, the members are chronically confused
about nearly everything having to do with addressing. Since very few list
members are going to be subscribed from different ISPs at the same time
(and those are apt to be the most expert) I don't expect this change (when
I
What Keith said. Either users are curious about this and will take the time to
understand, or they throw up their hands and “Computers!” and they will do the
minimum to get things working, which is how it was before.
My hosting provider, Dreamhost, just upgraded from 2.1.14 to 2.1.17 mere
On 05/07/2014 05:41 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
If it means that Reply vs Reply All work differently for list messages from
different domains, will it only lead to users becoming hopelessly confused?
Is there anyone who's already using this who could report on the reactions
from users?
It
28 matches
Mail list logo
