On 05/27/10 01:38, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
No we weren't. I didn't understand that the policy of stripping
headers on entry to Mailman proposed in earlier messages had been
transmuted to presume an archive of pre-stripped messages.
*nod*
That's why I backed up and tried to clarify. ;)
Grant Taylor writes:
On 05/26/10 02:35, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
It fixes it for the Mailman host, yes. It's still wasting some
bandwidth and may indicate more serious problems on an intermediate
host. Typically it's not a problem at either the last hop or the
apparent sender,
Grant Taylor writes:
So, I think this does fix this problem.
It fixes it for the Mailman host, yes. It's still wasting some
bandwidth and may indicate more serious problems on an intermediate
host. Typically it's not a problem at either the last hop or the
apparent sender, so quite painful
On 05/26/10 02:35, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
It fixes it for the Mailman host, yes. It's still wasting some
bandwidth and may indicate more serious problems on an intermediate
host. Typically it's not a problem at either the last hop or the
apparent sender, so quite painful to trace in the
On 05/24/10 23:48, Ted Targosz wrote:
Thank you very much... your advice appears to be spot on...
You are welcome.
I've added a header_check to my postfix configuration on my mailman
server to prune the headers from my internal gateway before they are
passed to mailman.
...
that appears
On 05/24/10 23:55, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
But pruning Received headers has the disadvantage that you can't
detect real loops caused by some bonehead with the list in his
.forward (or more likely a broken MTA config).
You are correct, that is a theoretical possibility.
But depending on
Grant Taylor writes:
Even if it was, we would be talking about a loop of what flows through
Mailman. And unless I am mistaken, I think Mailman has another header,
X-BeenThere: to detect this very problem.
Detect is one thing, fix is another.
Certainly it makes sense to cut out all but
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Detect is one thing, fix is another.
Um, unless I'm mistaken, Mailman will not accept a message in to a
mailing list if the header exists and has the list in question listed in
said header.
In other words, that's Mailman's loop detection to make sure that a
While not strictly a mailman question, I'm having a problem with
delivering mail to a few list members because their mail server sees our
mail man messages as having too many hops.
my mailman server is behind a Anti-Spam Anti-Virus Gateway Email Server
using Postfix, Amavisd-new,
Ted Targosz wrote:
so I was wondering if anyone else had encountered this and knew of a
workaround (besides bypassing the gateway)
I've not run in to this my self (with Mailman). But what you say makes
perfect sense.
If you are not pruning Received: headers as you pass your messages in to
Grant,
Thank you very much... your advice appears to be spot on...
I've added a header_check to my postfix configuration on my mailman
server to prune the headers from my internal gateway before they are
passed to mailman.
something like
/^Received: from localhost/IGNORE
/^Received:
Grant Taylor writes:
If you are not pruning Received: headers as you pass your messages in to
Mailman, they may be counted as extra headers contributing to the loop
detection cludge.
But pruning Received headers has the disadvantage that you can't
detect real loops caused by some
12 matches
Mail list logo
