Here is the entire end of the IncomingRunner.py file as it stands now:
except Errors.HoldMessage:
# Let the approval process take it from here. The message no
# longer needs to be queued.
return 0
except Errors.RejectMessage, e:
#mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e)
#return 0
# Log this.
syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s
list: %s, handler: %s, reason: %s""",
msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'),
mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice())
mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e)
except:
# Push this pipeline module back on the stack, then re-raise
# the exception.
pipeline.insert(0, handler)
raise
# We've successfully completed handling of this message
return 0
Is that the "return 0" you speak of or does it need to appear higher rather
than the end of the file?
Christopher Puchalski
Corporate IT Security
chris.puchal...@raytheon.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Mailman-Users
[mailto:mailman-users-bounces+chris.puchalski=raytheon....@python.org] On
Behalf Of Mark Sapiro
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 12:22 PM
To: mailman-users@python.org
Subject: [External] Re: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior
On 01/05/2018 10:50 AM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote:
>
> IncomingRunner.py (portion containing Errors.RejectMessage):
>
> except Errors.RejectMessage, e:
> #mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e)
> #return 0
> # Log this.
> syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s
> list: %s, handler: %s, reason: %s""",
> msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'),
> mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice())
> mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e)
The next line should be
return 0
The commented bit
#mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e)
#return 0
Is all there was in the 2.1.12 base. In 2.1 16 it was changed to
except Errors.RejectMessage, e:
# Log this.
syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s
list: %s,
handler: %s,
reason: %s""",
msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'),
mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice())
mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e)
return 0
It appears that someone has backported this and possibly dropped the return
which may be the issue. I'm not certain. Without the return 0, the try: should
fall through to the following return 0 anyway, so it really shouldn't matter.
Also, if this is a RedHat change and it is the reason, I'm sure there would
have been more complaints by now.
I'm pretty much out of ideas at this point. If you want to tar up the entire
/var/lib/mailman/Mailman directory and send it to me off list, I'll try to
duplicate the issue. Other than that, I don't know what more to try.
--
Mark Sapiro <m...@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy:
http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/chris.puchalski%40raytheon.com
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
