Re: [Mailman-Users] rare problem

2007-06-29 Thread Jesús Oliván
I've applied changes in my regexp like u said, thanks! and this is the From line you requested: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?123456789-123456789-12345678=E99-123456789-123456789?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?-123456789-123456789-?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] This one comes from a mail that has not beed accepted by mailman,

Re: [Mailman-Users] Blank Characters Removed from Subject: Line

2007-06-29 Thread Barry Finkel
Barry Finkel writes: I am running Mailman 2.1.9. I have a list where one posting has a Subject: line: Change in Procedure for Computers on list with possible Antivirus Problems The next posting in the thread has: Change in Procedure for Computers on list with

[Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules to frustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-29 Thread Rich Kulawiec
Two related suggestions. (1) LHS (left-hand-side) rules Any incoming mail message whose putative sender matches: do-not-reply@ do.not.reply@ donotreply@ no-reply@ no.reply@ noreply@ and which is directed to any of the Mailman standard aliases

[Mailman-Users] Problem/Question Regarding Bounce Processing

2007-06-29 Thread Barry Finkel
I have a question/problem with Mailman bounce processing. We have Mailman lists here that are re-built every morning from our Human Resources database. When mail is sent to one of these lists, and one or more of the e-mail addresses therein have problems, I see in my morning report (and/or in the

Re: [Mailman-Users] rare problem

2007-06-29 Thread Mark Sapiro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesús Oliván wrote: I've applied changes in my regexp like u said, thanks! and this is the From line you requested: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?123456789-123456789-12345678=E99-123456789-123456789?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?-123456789-123456789-?= [EMAIL

Re: [Mailman-Users] Problem/Question Regarding Bounce Processing

2007-06-29 Thread Mark Sapiro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Barry Finkel wrote: I have a question/problem with Mailman bounce processing. We have Mailman lists here that are re-built every morning from our Human Resources database. When mail is sent to one of these lists, and one or more of the e-mail

Re: [Mailman-Users] Blank Characters Removed from Subject: Line

2007-06-29 Thread Mark Sapiro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Barry Finkel wrote: Below are pieces of two messages. I have the original message from the archives of the sender followed by the relevant lines of the list .mbox file (including line numbers).

Re: [Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules to frustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-29 Thread Mark Sapiro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rich Kulawiec wrote: Two related suggestions. snip [1] The difference between a reject and a bounce: a reject is performed by emitting the appropriate SMTP status code and closing the connection; that is, the message is refused while the SMTP

Re: [Mailman-Users] Problem/Question Regarding Bounce Processing

2007-06-29 Thread Barry Finkel
Barry Finkel wrote: I have a question/problem with Mailman bounce processing. We have Mailman lists here that are re-built every morning from our Human Resources database. When mail is sent to one of these lists, and one or more of the e-mail addresses therein have problems, I see in my

Re: [Mailman-Users] Problem/Question Regarding Bounce Processing

2007-06-29 Thread Mark Sapiro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Barry Finkel wrote: I am sorry that I was not clear in my posting. In a normal list, where persons subscribe and unsubscribe, I am content with the Mailman bounce processing, where Mailman will set nomail for addresses that continually bounce.

Re: [Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules to frustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-29 Thread John W. Baxter
On 6/29/07 7:44 AM, Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two related suggestions. (1) LHS (left-hand-side) rules Any incoming mail message whose putative sender matches: do-not-reply@ do.not.reply@ donotreply@ no-reply@ no.reply@ noreply@ and which is directed to any of the

Re: [Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules to frustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-29 Thread Rich Kulawiec
Mark, John -- reading both your messages (and applying significantly more coffee) has induced enlightenment. Yep, this is just not going to work the way I'd suggested. Bad me. No biscuit. So let me modify these as follows and see if this is any better: (1) LHS (left-hand-side) rules Present

[Mailman-Users] Making list owner (listname-owner) appear in Return Path

2007-06-29 Thread D G Teed
We are doing well in our migration from MJ2 to mailman. The default of sending emails with the -bounce address doesn't fit with our needs. We'd like it to work the way it did with MJ2, where the listname-owner type of address was in the Return-Path. Typically we set our list owner to be some

Re: [Mailman-Users] Making list owner (listname-owner) appear in ReturnPath

2007-06-29 Thread Mark Sapiro
D G Teed wrote: I think my answer is to edit SMTPDirect.py to set the Sender and Return Path, but I'm not sure what variable I need to use there. Is 'mlist.owner[:]' what I'll need? I'd want the specific list owner, not the site mailman owner. What you need is mlist.GetOwnerEmail() which will

Re: [Mailman-Users] Making list owner (listname-owner) appear inReturnPath

2007-06-29 Thread Mark Sapiro
Mark Sapiro wrote: If I understand what you want, you can accomplish it by finding the code # Calculate the non-VERP envelope sender. envsender = msgdata.get('envsender') if envsender is None: if mlist: envsender = mlist.GetBouncesEmail() else:

Re: [Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules to frustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-29 Thread John W. Baxter
On 6/29/07 11:23 AM, Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: p.s. As as aside, I strongly recommend against callbacks/SAV. It's inherently abusive, it's a deliberate attempt to bypass site security policies [and thus illegal in some jurisdictions, but ask your attorney for clarification

Re: [Mailman-Users] specific (1) LHS and (2) sender rules tofrustrate spam/phishing

2007-06-29 Thread Mark Sapiro
Rich Kulawiec wrote: So let me modify these as follows and see if this is any better: (1) LHS (left-hand-side) rules Present to list-owner for disposition as done today, but mark it prominently as noreply address, almost certainly a forgery. (2) sender rules Present to list-owner for

Re: [Mailman-Users] Blank Characters Removed from Subject: Line

2007-06-29 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Mark Sapiro writes: But, the fact remains that there are many commonly used MUAs that drop a whitespace character in unfolding and there's not much we can do about that. I wonder if they're better with RFC 2047. That is, suppose we rendered Subject: Pretend this is a long field as