Richard Wackerbarth writes:
However, we need to keep the level of integration issue open
until someone (presumedly the student) completes an inventory of
reasonable possibilities.
I would like to leave that up to Peter. (We should avoid burdening
the students with chores like inventorying
Richard Wackerbarth writes:
Would it be easier if we just treated owners and moderators as a
couple of additional mailing lists.
That would require additional, complex attributes that aren't
appropriate for most lists to be given to all lists. They'd have to
have a .virtual_list_for
Richard Wackerbarth writes:
I agree that it might be messier. But it still might be cleaner if
you want the moderators, etc. to have all of the subscription
options
We don't. Some are meaningless (notMeToo, noDups), some should not be
available (noMail -- at least not if a vacation
varun sharma writes:
1. The mail delivery will be stopped for moderators as well as list
owners. So the moderators should also not receive any add request
pending email during the vacation period.
Moderators and owners need to have their vacations treated differently
from other users,
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
Is implementing this option something that would be part of the first
phase of the work, or should it be part of a later phase?
He can implement it whenever he wants :-), but if I were his GSoC
mentor, he'd be getting paid for something else (ie, the pure
Abhilash Raj writes:
This part is little difficult to ponder on. Suppose a user signs up
for a list. He creates a user account and subscribes to a particular
list which needs his pub-key and implements signing.
In Mailman 3, users and subscriptions are separate concepts. We
should assume
Kip Warner writes:
Does anyone have any suggestions or other feedback they'd like to share
or propose a better solution?
The better solution is Mailman 3, which provides a REST API for
programmatic administration, but it not going to be considered ready
for production use (at least, not
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
The only way that a DKIM check would fail for the given attack, would be
if the DKIM included the To: and Cc: headers and the list was configured
to reject mail that either (a) failed or did not have a DKIM signature,
or (b) did not include the list's address
Abhilash Raj writes:
This is a list of topics that probably needs to be discussed in detail
again. I tried to mention in breif about the discussions in past
personally with a someone or on mm-dev list. Please ignore the topics
which you feel has already reached a inference. It is a long
Not in GSoC scope, this is direct to Barry (and anybody else,
including GSoC students of course, interested in core).
Barry Warsaw writes:
I know this is a little backwards, but it's probably the best match
for the current rule/chain model.
I have a smallish problem with this model.
Joost van Baal-Ilić writes:
Indeed, that could work. Another way to deal with it could be: a
key is considered valid if it is imported in the trusted keyring of
the current list. And declare deciding wether to import out of
the scope of the project.
I think that we necessarily have to
Barry Warsaw writes:
It's a valid complaint. What I've suggested in the past is that a
rule can do some *nondestructive* processing of a message before it
makes its decision. The rule would either throw out the results of
the processing (possibly leading to duplication of work) or would
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
I think Abhilash's question above is a really important question,
It is.
and one that really should be addressed by this GSoC project.
Vetoed (I'm the mentor). Abhilash is welcome to work on key
management if he wants to, but he will not be evaluated on it
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. OpenPGP certification
should be identity certification, and nothing else. trying to extend
OpenPGP certification to mean something other than identity
certification sounds like a bad idea to me -- it breaks all
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
On 07/01/2013 01:58 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The way I think of it is that Users may have several roles (read,
post, moderate, admin) for each list. Each of these roles may be
certified by a different agent of the owner, where agents
VuNghia Truong writes:
Could any one please help me to answers these questions:
- Is the handling workflow b.t version 2 and 3 the same or different?
It's different. V2 has a single pipeline that both checks the mail
for conformance to list regulations and also cleans up the post
(removing
Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com writes:
Hey, I've been trying to find the superuser at Gmail, and it turns out
I've known him all along! Would you please fix the breakage where
copies of one's posts aren't delivered to yourself, which is a real
PITA when trying to diagnose Gmail
Franck Martin writes:
If the From: contains the posting email of the mailing list, one
would think that the default becomes reply to the list, but this is
where Reply-To: can be used.
Most users do not display Reply-To; many cannot (at least not at their
level of technical skill). This
Franck Martin writes:
This is speculation,
I said so myself. The fact that I'm paranoid just means I've read
Bellovin and Cheswick.
and broad fear of the future...
No, it's an extrapolation of my own occasional experience, and the
frequent pain of others that I see on this list, and the
SM writes:
Hi Stephen,
At 18:39 08-07-2013, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
work better. Sometimes it's appropriate to take ownership of From.
There is a case where the mailing list administrator configured the
list to take ownership of the From. Telling people that it was not
a good
Franck Martin writes:
We are not asking mailman to do the work of DMARC here. There is
openDMARC for that.
Of course you are, in feature #1. Unless you take it literally
(reject all email that comes from such a domain, *including* email
that would authenticate correctly in a full DMARC
Barry Warsaw writes:
On Jul 11, 2013, at 03:23 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
This is somewhat problematic. DMARC results are potentially
trivalent. If action is reject and pct is less than 100, some hits
are rejects and some are quarantine. Misses are misses. So I
guess you do
Barry Warsaw writes:
On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Yep. There is some limited ability to do additional checking
at LMTP time, but this isn't pluggable currently.
Does LMTP provide the necessary ability to reject?
Not reject in the Mailman sense
Geoff Shang writes:
The reason why I'm asking is that I'm in need of some Mm3 features
and was wondering if it was ready for limited deployment, and if
so, what those limits currently are.
The list server is in beta, when combined with Postfix as the MTA.
Interfaces to other MTAs have not
Barry Warsaw writes:
On Jul 15, 2013, at 01:21 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The only thing I can think of offhand for core is Exim support.
(Sendmail support, I suppose, but nobody I know uses Sendmail, and I
can't do it. Exim on the other hand is on my personal list.)
I'd very
ehr...@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu writes:
I am not an expert but the encryption discussion is
extremely important.
We are not currently discussing encryption, but rather signing. A
similar approach might work for signing, but it's subject to a weaker
form of the objection below.[1]
VuNghia Truong writes:
Could any one please give me advices about how to check if a message is a
new thread or just a reply to a thread?
Check for a References: header or an In-Reply-To: header. These
headers contain message ids from the thread. If they aren't present,
the message starts a
nkarageuz...@gmail.com writes:
I'm looking forward mailman 3 to find efficient archive UI, with posting
from web feature (just like in http://groupserver.org/)
I don't see a reply, so even though I'm not the best person to answer
this I'll take a hack at it.
There were two or three
Barry Warsaw writes:
On Aug 14, 2013, at 05:35 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
[1] Has anybody else noticed that both gpg's UI and its documentation
seem designed to make it as hard to use as possible?
Sadly, I think this is one of the biggest reasons why we've never
seen
Abhilash Raj writes:
I think the address should be $LIST-owner@fqdn. For other parameters,
defaults are OK I think (size=2048, type=RSA IIRC).
Here should not the address be the list's posting address? Like for
mm-dev list should it not be mailman-developers@python.org?
Maybe. But
Nghia Vu Truong writes:
Is there any way to get message's content based on its Message ID?
That depends on where the message is stored and what features that
store implements, and where and how you want to fetch messages by
message ID. If you're using a standard Mailman installation with
the
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
On 08/14/2013 04:35 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Python 2.7.5 (default, Aug 1 2013, 23:58:20)
from gnupg import GPG
gpg =
GPG(gnupghome='/Users/steve/.gnupg',keyring='test-pub',secret_keyring='test-sec')
crypted = gpg.encrypt(u'A bit of random
Barry Warsaw writes:
A while ago I mentioned that I was trying to get rid of zc.buildout to build
Mailman 3 and zope.testing to test it. This work is now complete and pushed
to trunk.
Yee-haw!
(and giddyap, GSOC students! fix them tests!)
___
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
On 08/28/2013 09:37 PM, Abhilash Raj wrote:
1) There is a 'signature rule'[1] that can verify signature from the
users whose public key is stored in 'var/gpg' directory insider
'pubring.gpg'. This rule also verifies that the email has only two parts
one
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
On 08/30/2013 12:56 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The last time I looked (~10 days ago), that was the implementation:
look only at the message-level Content-Type, ensure it's
multipart/signed, check that there are exactly two parts and that the
second
Mark Sapiro writes:
On 08/21/2013 02:02 PM, Nghia Vu Truong wrote:
Hi there,
Could you please help me with this question!
Is there anyway we can attach a document to message, sending by
UserNotification method?
No. Mailman.Message.UserNotification() creates a single part,
Abhilash Raj writes:
I have attached all 3 type of message, each in a different file. Please
can you place it in your maildir and check how your MUAs respond to it
and report here? The message signature will not be verified(the
signature text is actually gibberish), this experiment is
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
On 09/11/2013 08:44 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Abhilash Raj writes:
I have attached all 3 type of message, each in a different file. Please
can you place it in your maildir and check how your MUAs respond to it
and report here? The message
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
I'm just pointing out that mailman commonly produces what you've
called invalid data,
In the OpenPGP sense that the whole message cannot be considered to be
validly signed, even though it may contain a multipart/signed part
with a valid signature.
and that its
Franck Martin writes:
In the upcoming mailman 2.1.16 there has been the introduction of
the optional feature author_is_list
Replace the sender
Before you release, s/sender/author/, please. When discussing
Internet email, sender != author. The name of the feature, author is
list, is an
Mark Sapiro writes:
Franck has assured me that this feature can be useful even in the
absence of the DNS and MTA changes necessary to DKIM sign outgoing
list mail,
That's nonsense. There's no reason to do this in the absence of
correct DKIM signatures by Mailman or its MTA, and every
Franck Martin writes:
we (the people using DMARC) have the opportunity to build
adoption. Just trying to reduce adoption friction ;)
The direction you're heading will *create* adoption friction. The
only way you're going to be able to sell this to admins like me is to
wait until our users
Franck Martin writes:
One may argue that since the list is modifying the message, it is
now the new author of it, this proposal just make it more clearly.
Nonsense. Here's what RFC 5322 says:
The From: field specifies the author(s) of the message, that is,
the mailbox(es) of the
Franck Martin writes:
Unfortunately z= and especially l= are not used practically by
senders because they create a risk. One could add an attachment
containing malware to the message for instance.
Indeed, we have to assume that the MUAs are broken in this respect.
See Daniel Gillmor's
Franck Martin writes:
When a list goes bad, usually the members are not blamed but the
list admin, therefore making the list the system responsible of the
writing of the message.
Please stop being evasive. The RFC's use of responsible is intended
to point to the person who wanted the
Franck Martin writes:
I'm not sure if DKIM was ever meant to be exposed to the end user,
but the current trend is to try to protect the end user as much as
possible and this is done best by MTAs than MUAs.
I disagree fundamentally. It's best done by *both* MTAs and MUAs.
Not all threats
Franck Martin writes:
I think, it is risky to code this encapsulation method directly and
now, it requires a branch some testing and then merging back into
the main branch.
First, the risk is zero, except to volunteers, as long as it's not
default.
Second, it's been tested for decades. A
Mark Sapiro writes:
I have had another thought. I will look at provisionally making
ALLOW_AUTHOR_IS_LIST a 3 way switch for 2.1.16 with 0 or False (No)
meaning current (2.1.15) behavior, 1 or True (Yes) meaning the 2.1.16rc1
behavior and 2 meaning the encapsulated message behavior.
If
Abhilash Raj writes:
P.S.: There is a working version of my copy of mailman here[1] if you
want to have a look.
[1]: http://maxking.emoir.co.in
A request: Abhilash is busy with exams for the next several days, so
please post questions about the implementation to mailman-developers
Hi all,
I have successfully added Exim 4 support to Mailman 3. The branch is
here:
lp:~stephen-xemacs/mailman/exim4
There's an instance at maxking-t...@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp which
also contains Abhilash's signed-list feature. Since it's very strict
about checking signatures, it
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
I wonder how long we can hold out before we start trying to drag
[the MUA developers] into our conversations, which might be the
only way to solve these pain points long term. It seems to me that
Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Thunderbird, etc., must have either a team or
Hi, Kẏra!
Thank you for your interest in Mailman 3! I'm sure I speak for all
the developers in saying that we are honored!
That said, what follows is the well-informed (I believe ;-) but
individual opinion of one developer, complicated by the fact that
Mailman development is quite decentralized
Patrick Ben Koetter writes:
Maybe documentation that tells interested people how they can start
using the beta?
I'm not sure what you mean. None of the GSoC students had trouble
with getting Mailman 3 itself up and running once they got it checked
out and installed. From that point of
Terri Oda writes:
But yeah, I think packaging [the suite] well (and then documenting
*that*) makes a lot more sense,
+1
unless someone's feeling particularly inspired?
-10 -- it's all gonna turn upside down when we package, anyway.
[Aside: If you're feeling *that* inspired, volunteer
Ralf Hildebrandt writes:
Absolutely. Topics of interest to me would include:
* what has changed (GUI?)
Already in the beta distribution. But briefly, everything's all-new,
all-shiny. There will be mailman2-to-mailman3 migration scripts, of
course, but the admin and archive websites are
Ralf Hildebrandt writes:
Where else do you expect to find this information, so we can put it
there?
I must admin I haven't tried installing yet, mainly because I didn't
know how to go back in case of problems.
Repeating what I already wrote for completeness here: Migrating and
then
Aurélien Bompard writes:
I don't recall, but I think finishing HyperKitty was one of them.
AFAIK it doesn't work as advertised now (at least that's what
Shanu told me in her work on a unified Messaging Interface for
Systers).
Oh, I'm interested by any bug reports. Please.
I
Aurélien Bompard writes:
Branch and pull request for what import script?
The import21 command, which is meant to import an existing 2.1 pickle
configuration file into Mailman 3
Ah, now I see. I thought you were still talking about importing
archives.
Thank you very much for this
Barry Warsaw writes:
So this feature in particular, if Postorius can do all the
necessary confirmations, I can much more easily provide an API that
Postorius can call to associate an email address with a given user.
I'm getting that ol' sinking feeling. Either Postorius is *the*
Mailman 3
Barry Warsaw writes:
Mailman2 router (I've already submitted the docs for that -- they're
very generic -- don't know if Barry's merged them yet), and start
adding Mailman3 lists.
This branch?
https://code.launchpad.net/~stephen-xemacs/mailman/exim4/+merge/187302j
Yes, but don't
Colin Fleming writes:
Is there a way to create an archive view (i.e. present a view of
all messages in a list and allow reading particular mails) using
the current API?
No, and (sorry Barry, but I think you just added to the confusion --
IArchiver is really a write-only API) there won't be
Franck Martin writes:
As they say at IETF: Read the spec! :P
I have (probably three times carefully by now), and I still can't
understand why you think DMARC makes any sense at all for mailing
lists. (I have no trouble at all understanding why Citibank thinks
it's great. But that's a
Adam McGreggor writes:
https://code.launchpad.net/~stephen-xemacs/mailman/exim4/+merge/187302j
404s for me; is
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~stephen-xemacs/mailman/exim4/revision/7219
the same?
Yes, that's the one.
it might be worth adding a reminder that order of routers matters in
Colin Fleming writes:
Thanks for the comments, Steve - can you clarify what you mean by a
write-only API?
Mailman core has no way to retrieve those messages.
For the rest, I think Barry's answer is clear and definitive.
___
Mailman-Developers
Ian Eiloart writes:
On 30 Oct 2013, at 13:33, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Repeating what I already wrote for completeness here: Migrating and
then going back all at once is not necessary. You can migrate bit by
bit, although it may require a little bit of manual
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
so if python's email module really does mangle this part, it cannot be
used within RFC-2480-compliant mail gateways. This is a bug in python's
email module, and it needs to be fixed. Have you reported it to the
python email module?
I believe the problem is
Barry Warsaw writes:
the address 0.0.0.0 to access it from outside of the VirtualBox with Port
Mapping.
0.0.0.0 is a reserved IPv4 address:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses#Reserved_IPv4_addresses
I don't think it's a very interesting idea to bind a listener to
Barry Warsaw writes:
On Feb 04, 2014, at 02:49 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
(WSGI is not a webserver, it is an interface between Python and a real
webserver)
Right, but the wsgiref stdlib module does provide a WSGI-compliant HTTP
server, which is what Mailman's REST runner uses
Hi, Máirín! Good to see you here!
Máirín Duffy writes:
Do you know if Summer of Code students can do interaction design / UX
stuff? Because I'd be willing to mentor for that.
I'm not sure what you mean by design. Something like graphic design
via CSS alone doesn't fly. It has to come
Máirín Duffy writes:
By UX design I don't mean simply surface aesthetics, but designing the
interactions and workflows for new features and cleaning up what's
there, scoping out new features (e.g., right now Karen and I are working
out whether or not users should be able to follow
Zeel Shah writes:
I want to request any mentor out there please throw some light about these
two projects.
We're still in the application process. You're probably not going to
get a lot of love from mentors until after the 24th, when Google
announces the accepted orgs, or perhaps later if
Rajeev S writes:
I have implemented a mass subscription via file upload feature for
Postorious which can be found here.
https://code.launchpad.net/~rajeevs1992/mailman-rajeevs1992/trunk
How am I to submit a merge request to the Postorious repository?I tried to
propose a merge via
Barry Warsaw writes:
On Feb 24, 2014, at 09:54 PM, Florian Fuchs wrote:
The good news: The Python Software Foundation was more successful
(congrats to Terri!), so we'll be able to participate under their
umbrella again. \o/
Much thanks to Terri and all involved. Looking forward to
Tom Browder writes:
We really appreciate your efforts to test the betas of Mailman 3. But
please do be aware that although there are sites already successfully
using Mailman 3 in production, the development team doesn't recommend
use of any of the components (core, Postorius, HyperKitty) in
Nicolas Karageuzian writes:
I encountered db lock using sqlite with mailman3 and tools.
Switching to postgres avoid the db locking states.
Maybe you should explore that way.
Hyperkitty moved to github so the lp ref is quite out of date for this
resource.
Thanks for the advice!
Rajeev S writes:
As mentioned, here is my approach towards the full anonymization
project.
AFAICS as far as described it will provide the outcomes you describe.
However, I don't understand the use case here. Most approaches use a
single secret ID for each user. This is not just a matter
varun sharma writes:
Why would you use Django to build the tool as opposed to just a
python package?
I was thinking of expanding it like buildbot to include django
based GUI and detailed reports. So i thought we can use django, but
if we just want a command line tool, then python
hi guys,
I just added a link from Sprints to the GSoC 2014 page.
I have found it frustrating to see queries from interested students
about projects where I have no clue who the appropriate mentor might
be, and haven't seen any responses on-list. So ...
I took the liberty of adding a Potential
Hi,
I added a Mentor List (ie, roster) at the end of the project page,
and added (besides myself) Florian, Barry and Terri. I don't mind
having my address there (so added it) but didn't take liberties with
anybody else's mailbox.
Regards
___
Rajeev S writes:
The deliverables of the project would be, at the least,
- Command line tools to perform tasks in the mailman client docs
I think there should be one tool with multiple commands. These can be
implemented by separate commands in a directory off the normal PATH if
you
Abhilash Raj writes:
Hi,I have a pretty good understand of the mailman core, I would
love to co-mentor any project if I am allowed?
You're allowed. Lots of former students (and the occasional current
student as well!) are mentors.
Some of the following my sound harsh, and it is my private
Florian Fuchs writes:
One is the one-off command (with options) that outputs a result,
either on stdout or saved to a file. This could make for an
interesting project, but I think then it would really make more sense
(like Steve said) to extend the existing `mailman` command instead of
Barry Warsaw writes:
BTW Tom, are you trying to run MM2 and MM3 concurrently? I'd like
that to be a supported deployment use case, but haven't had much
time to try it myself.
I do this already, but with Exim4 as MTA. It's not hard. Of course
if both installations have lists of the same
Tom Browder writes:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
Barry Warsaw writes:
BTW Tom, are you trying to run MM2 and MM3 concurrently? I'd like
I do this already, but with Exim4 as MTA. It's not hard. Of course
if both installations
varun sharma writes:
Can i use buildbot for the server part and integrate it with
frontend suite ?
This is way too compact to understand what you're proposing. If you
mean configure a buildbot to build and test Mailman 3, and that's
it, no. This is Google Summer of *Code*, and you have to
varun sharma writes:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
step...@xemacs.orgwrote:
[ long irrelevant quote snipped -- please trim! If you really can't
trim because you're using a handheld in a crowded bus on a very bumpy
road, please *top* post, but make sure your text
varun sharma writes:
Actually my idea is to import all the unit tests from the projects
involved in the suite and write new tests as well if required, so
that we can check both integration of new code and integration
of components with each other. Selectively combining unit tests of
Nitin Agarwal writes:
Here its Nitin Agarwal, an open source Software developer and
enthusiast.
Hi, pleased to meet you. I'm belatedly replying to the list, and at
length, as there are other students in your situation. I hope it
helps.
First off, I saw you talked to Terri on IRC. Much as
Barry Warsaw writes:
The basic problem is this: with the separation of web ui and core, the core
can't actually know a priori what those links will be, or even if there *are*
links. So in my branch I actually remove all those links from the default
templates and rewrite as necessary to
Aurelien Bompard writes:
I'd like to discuss what happens when an email is sent by both a
member and a nonmember in Mailman3. How is that possible? Very easy,
here's my use case : I have my own domain, say example.com, and for
convenience and portability I choose to use Gmail as a
Bhargav Golla writes:
I hope my mail hasn't missed your attention. I would be very much
obliged if someone could answer this question so that I can go
ahead and write proposal.
First, it's impolite to send mail to specific people just because
they're answered you before, unless they are
Barry Warsaw writes:
I'm having a hard time right now seeing how we could continue to
support these types of operations with a combined member and
non-member rule.
I expressed myself poorly. The parameters of the decision logic given
the list of senders are different for the two rules so
Bhargav Golla writes:
guess the culture varies from organization to organization
Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed it does. ASF (and the PSF
for that matter) have a lot more applicants, and at least the PSF is
using a generic channel -- core-mentorship -- for GSoC and OPW
interns. In
Barry Warsaw writes:
I feel quite strongly that rules should be self-contained and
unordered, with ordering imposed by the chain of links that rules
are associated with.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying
that rules should not have a
Bhargav Golla writes:
Also, I have observed on the PSF GSoC page that it requires students to
submit a patch to the sub-organization.
I like this one:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/881320
Requires knowledge of gettext and the Python facilities for dealing
with it (IIRC xgettext
Kẏra writes:
Is there a page documenting how to start testing MM3 with
postorius+hyperkitty and how to upgrade from MM2?
The relevant and up-to-date documentation is mostly in the docs in the
source trees of the various projects. Some effort has been made to
update the wiki, but I doubt
Mark Sapiro writes:
I have tentatively scheduled an open space for Friday, 11 April at
18:00 in room 523B at Pycon to talk about DMARC and mail lists. All
available interested parties are invited. If the time doesn't work,
we can reschedule.
Is that EST or EDT? I'll try to be around on
Just to follow up quickly (I've got problems I need to deal with
elsewhere over the next couple days).
Abhilash Raj writes:
Hey, thanks for jumping in, maxking!
Hi Rajeev,
Congratulations! We look forward to a great summer with you.
Definitely!
I would like to thank the Mailman
Rajeev S writes:
You do a *heroku login *from your shell and you can run commands on
the remote server of your application from your shell.This would be
an interesting project and would hugely benefit usability of the
current project.
Sure, under the hood this is just an ssh login, most
Tanstaafl writes:
On 4/27/2014 11:03 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
When you get ~250 wanted mails (many of them list, of
course) and ~1000 spams (that get past the 6-sigma if this filter
thinks it's spam, throw it away! filter) a day, automatic processing
401 - 500 of 969 matches
Mail list logo
