Re: [Mailman-Users] Bounce processing not working - Update
On 8/12/2009 2:02 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote: The Gentoo init script for mailman is pretty simple. It executes, as user 'mailman', mailmanctl -s start, mailmanctl stop and mailmanctl restart for the standard init script arguments of start, stop and restart. That's all. Mine stopped working and no amount of begging on the gentoo forums resulted in any fixes. What finally fixed it for me was to add the full path to the mailmanctl command being issued. http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-641573-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-mailman-start-0.html I found a thread on the Gentoo bug reporting list which discusses compatibility issues between Mailman 2.1.11 and Python 2.6, also possibly 2.5 (which I'm running on these boxes). Gentoo is distributing mm 2.1.11 with stable as of yesterday, Thanks for the heads up about the compatibility issues, guess I'll wait a while before updating, but... Hmmm... I just synced, and it still shows 2.1.9-r3 as current stable. and 2.1.12 with unstable, Confirmed. -- Best regards, Charles -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Users] Corrupted archives ...
Glenn Sieb wrote: Mark Sapiro said the following on 8/12/09 10:05 AM: As Terry suggests, you could run bin/cleanarch as an additional test/correction on the listname.mbox. There may be unescaped From in message bodies that didn't confuse Mutt or that you didn't notice with Mutt, and then run bin/arch --wipe to rebuild the archive. But also be aware as Terry says that this may renumber messages and break saved links to archived messages. *nods* This is an instance where I may have to go through manually with vi and fix this email-by-email. :sigh: It will take forever, considering there are 55k or so messages in the archive. If as you imply below, you've already run bin/arch --wipe in the recent past, then you've already reneumbered the archive, so don't worry about doing it again. An alternative alternative is to just remove 2009-August/, 2009-August.txt and 2009-August.txt.gz (if any) from archives/private/listname/ and then run bin/arch (without --wipe) with input just consisting of the Aug, 1999 portion of listname.mbox. Ooh. Let me try that one. But the real questions are how did this happen; do the 128 messages all have Mon Aug 10 18:53:40 EDT 2009 timestamps or do they have different timestamps, and what may have been done at that/those times? It was probably one of the times I ran arch --wipe. And yes, they all have the same timestamp in the archives. Let me try re-running the arch command with the 2009-August* files removed Odd. I had to manually create the 2009-August directory, but the problem is still there. :-/ (I did bin/arch (listname)) I meant do bin/arch (listname) /path/to/edited/mbox/containing/only/2009August. However, if you've actually done bin/arch --wipe (listname) and wound up with those strange no-subject messages in the current month, there is either a problem with bin/arch or with the listname.mbox. What happens if you run bin/cleanarch /path/to/listname.mbox /dev/null -- Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.netThe highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman - a few questions
Bill Catambay writes: At 1:55 PM +0900 on 8/12/09, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: This can be done by setting up aliases as follows (pseudo-syntax, your mileage will vary): foo-list: modera...@example.com foo-list-moderated: | mailman post foo-list That requires modifying the mailman aliases in the MTA manually, though. This went over my head. What does MTA manually mean? Does that mean it cannot be done with the web interface? Do I need to contact my ISP, or is there something I can do using my shell account access? Working with the mail transfer agent (MTA == Postfix IIRC) cannot be done through Mailman's web interface. [If you have something like cPanel it might be possible.] To change aliases in the MTA you would need not just shell access, but root access. You may need help from your ISP in that case. My ISP is using Mailman 2.1.11. Is that the latest? I'm guessing no, since it is currently NOT recognizing the envelope sender. This sounds like one that I'll need to contact my ISP for. No, it is not the latest, 2.1.12 is. Unfortunately, it looks like things don't work as you need them to, definitely not in 2.1.11, and probably not in 2.1.12. As far as I can tell from the 2.1.11 code, the envelope sender *is* recognized in the moderation module, but only as one of several possible candidates for the *author* of the message. And the From header will be preferred to envelope sender for that. Among other things, I don't think Mailman knows who the moderator(s) is; anybody with the moderation password is a moderator. I can think of several approaches to make this work, but the only non-invasive one (ie, it restricts all changes in Mailman behavior to your lists) would require ISP intervention every time you want to change the moderator's address. Otherwise, there would need to be changes to some web templates and so on. I wouldn't like that if I were them. It seems that if you change the reply-to to an explicit address, that both digest and non-digest members should have the same reply-to. Sounds plausible but these things are complex. As I say, somebody more familiar with the detail needs to answer this one. That said, the option you need is on the admin page, near the bottom. Try disabling inclusion of the List-Post header. If that doesn't work, disable inclusion of the RFC 2369 headers, too. I did both. It appears to have fixed the problem (not sure which action, if not both, resolved it). Progress A second option here is to use the Approved: header or pseudo-header. Many MUAs can be set to add these automatically, YMMV. Could you elaborate on this? MUA is mail user agent, also called a client. Most people think of it as my mail program, but on this list that could mean the MUA, the MTA, or mailman itself, so Most MUAs have a fixed set of headers which you fill in as a form in a GUI: From, To, Cc, Subject. A powerful MUA will allow you to add arbitrary headers. If this is possible, then you add a header like this: Approved: password A pseudo-header looks exactly the same, but it is placed as the very first line of the body, before any formatted text. Not all MUAs can do this, either, unfortunately, if they are forwarding a formatted (eg, HTML) mail. In either case, Mailman automatically removes the Approved header. A third approach involves putting the approval in the subject. There was discussion of Approved in the subject header earlier this week or last week, check the archives. Mark provided a patch (that would definitely need intervention by your ISP). I think Mark's patch was somewhat invasive (ie, it would affect other people's lists in the same way, which your ISP might or might not like). There's also a method using a Handler that should work, and could be installed and configured without affecting anyone else's lists. It would require intervention by the ISP both to install the handler and configure it for you. Both the pseudo-header and Approved in Subject are somewhat unreliable and insecure IMO, but the advantage to Approved in Subject is that all MUAs can do this. Moderator is Sender is of course the easiest. All of these approaches suffer from the possibility that your moderation password could theoretically be sniffed on the net unless your moderator uses an encrypted channel to send mail to the list host. The Moderator is Enveloper Sender approach is also vulnerable, since it is easy (if you have the right tools such as a Linux workstation, or certain unofficial MUAs) to spoof the envelope sender. I don't want to alarm you, just to give you some information you need to compare these approaches. 4. Lastly, the web archives created by Autoshare automatically created clickable HTML links for all HTML URL's in posts. I don't think Pipermail (the default archiver bundled with Mailman) can do it at all, Interestingly, the archives for
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman - a few questions
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Bill Catambay writes: My ISP is using Mailman 2.1.11. Is that the latest? I'm guessing no, since it is currently NOT recognizing the envelope sender. This sounds like one that I'll need to contact my ISP for. No, it is not the latest, 2.1.12 is. Unfortunately, it looks like things don't work as you need them to, definitely not in 2.1.11, and probably not in 2.1.12. As far as I can tell from the 2.1.11 code, the envelope sender *is* recognized in the moderation module, but only as one of several possible candidates for the *author* of the message. And the From header will be preferred to envelope sender for that. It's somewhat confusing and complicated, but it hasn't changed in a long time. The way it works is that a post is considered to be from a member if a member address is found in any of (by default, see SENDER_HEADERS) the From: header, the envelope sender, the Reply-To: header if any and the Sender: header if any. If this test determines the post is from a member, the member's 'moderate' flag is checked and the post is handled accordingly. If more than one member address is in the above set, it's the first found in the above order that is used. This decision as to which moderate flag to use is the only place where the ordering of the search for a member address is significant If the post is not from a member, then a possibly different address is checked against *_these_nonmembers. This address is the first address found in a search that depends on the setting of USE_ENVELOPE_SENDER. If USE_ENVELOPE_SENDER is false (the default) the search order is From: header, Sender: header, envelope sender. If USE_ENVELOPE_SENDER is true, the search order is Sender: header, From: header, envelope sender. Thus, the name USE_ENVELOPE_SENDER is really a misnomer, but note that this only possibly affects the address used for *_these_nonmembers checks. -- Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.netThe highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
[Mailman-Users] Mailman error message
Hello, all Have anyone run into this message: Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning test-boun...@mailman.k12.or.us does not designate 74.125.149.50 as permitted sender) client- ip=74.125.149.50; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning test-boun...@mailman.k12.or.us does not designate 74.125.149.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=csd_staff-boun...@mailman.canby.k12.or.us We use Exim 4.69 and Mailman 2.0.11 on Fedora 10. We just recently added Postini archiving service; therefore, it alters the inbound as well as outbound gateway. A quick Google shows up with something about SPF and permitted sender. The above message seems to indicate that we need to add the 72.125. address into our server. Any pointer is greatly appreciated. Thank you, -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman error message
Hung Phan wrote: Have anyone run into this message: Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning test-boun...@mailman.k12.or.us does not designate 74.125.149.50 as permitted sender) client- ip=74.125.149.50; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning test-boun...@mailman.k12.or.us does not designate 74.125.149.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=csd_staff-boun...@mailman.canby.k12.or.us We use Exim 4.69 and Mailman 2.0.11 on Fedora 10. We just recently added Postini archiving service; therefore, it alters the inbound as well as outbound gateway. A quick Google shows up with something about SPF and permitted sender. The above message seems to indicate that we need to add the 72.125. address into our server. Any pointer is greatly appreciated. Your mail is being delivered to recipients through postini. The spf record for the mailman.canby.k12.or.us domain is v=spf1 mx ~all which says the MX for the domain, which also is mailman.canby.k12.or.us, is authorized to send mail from this domain and every other server is a softfail. You could change this record to v=spf1 mx ip4:74.125.149.50 ~all ore equivalently v=spf1 mx a:na3sys009amx210.postini.com ~all to authorize this particular server to send mail on your behalf, but postini probably has several servers so you probably would want something like v=spf1 mx ip4:74.125.149.50/x ~all to authorize the range where 'x' is the dumber of bits to consider and would have to be provided by postini, or perhaps postini has other mechanisms for specifying all their servers in SPF records. See http://www.openspf.org/. -- Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.netThe highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman - a few questions
Mark Sapiro writes: Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Bill Catambay writes: My ISP is using Mailman 2.1.11. Is that the latest? I'm guessing no, since it is currently NOT recognizing the envelope sender. This sounds like one that I'll need to contact my ISP for. Unfortunately, it looks like things don't work as you need them to, NB. As he needs them to means that the *list moderator* be recognized as the *envelope sender*, and the message be approved in that case. It's somewhat confusing and complicated, but it hasn't changed in a long time. And won't work for the OP, since envelope sender is always lowest priority in the checks. Just to summarize, since the OP characterizes himself as a newbie. Bottom line, a new feature is needed for his use case. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman - a few questions
Mark Sapiro writes: Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: NB. As he needs them to means that the *list moderator* be recognized as the *envelope sender*, and the message be approved in that case. Bottom line, a new feature is needed for his use case. I don't think so. Moderate.py calls the Message.get_senders() method to get *all* the addresses from the From: header, envelope sender, Reply-To: header and Sender: header. If any of those addresses is a member, the post is from a member. The point is that the OP's use-case is to make a decision based on envelope sender == moderator, while preserving originator headers. A member check is not what he wants. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
