I'll agree and they don't always pay attention to their users. I have
road runner internet but separate email.
On 7/7/2019 1:59 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Hi Jayson,
Roadrunner has been problematic in this way for decades. They don't
explain, they don't provide policy information or
I'm on the MM3 mailing list. Based on what I've been seeing without
spending a lot of time researching things, MM# does not seem stable. It
seems somewhere in the alpha/beta range, but closer to alpha status.
The problem does not seem to be with the MM3 code so much as it depends
on a lot of
https://xkcd.com/927/
On 11/11/2017 2:04 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
On 2017-11-11 12:22, Phil Stracchino wrote:
Heh, I just looked at that myself. How did such a useless tool ever
become standard?
[snip]
--
Mailman-Users mailing list
Spamassassin produces a numeric rating for for an email based on
multiple rules. Legitimate email can easily get a rating of 3 or 4
based on the way you have it configured. I've seen double digit ratings
as well. If you check for a single digit, you may be filtering
legitimate emails that
On 8/18/2017 1:52 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
On 08/18/2017 11:07 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
I second this. It is a legitimate part of compliant email addresses, no
matter how many web stores seem to believe otherwise (or are merely
unaware of it).
I third this.
I love
If the web backend can generate the code and email for the message and
you are on a *nix system then all you have to do is:
cat | sendmail -r -s ""
message can usually contain additional headers depending on the command
line options. message can be a canned message if you put the code in
What I've always done is offered special pricing, usually at least 50%
off for charitable 503(c) and other 'public service' type groups. It
more depended on the resources they required and the amount of hand holding.
On 5/15/17 3:13 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
All of the Mailman lists I host/admin
I had this problem during a ubuntu update. IIRC: I discovered that the
update changed the user/group id's of mailman from mailman:www-data to
list:list (or something like that) as it did a mailman update that
messed up the id's. It has been too long to remember the exact details.
The
Postfix is the same. I had to install a greylisting package to add
greylisting to postfix.
On 12/23/2016 9:50 AM, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
On 23 December 2016 at 17:36, Richard Shetron <gue...@sgeinc.com
<mailto:gue...@sgeinc.com>> wrote:
Maybe they were using some
Maybe they were using some type of grey listing.
For those who don't know:
Grey listing is where the target MTA rejects with a retry error code the
email from a new source for some period of time. Every site can set
their own delay. Most spammers won't retry so it gets rid of a lot of
spam.
You can always search the cache with:
apt-cache search python
or
apt-cache search python-dev
to get less noise.
On 12/14/2016 2:58 PM, Caesar Samsi wrote:
Indeed it is but what tripped me up was it was not python-devel it is actually
python-dev
Not quite a developer so didn’t think of trying
From a quick look, it looks like base64 encoding. Invented back in the
dialup/uucp days when transport was not always 8bit clean so things were
encoded to make sure only transportable characters were used.
On 9/22/2016 9:58 PM, Matt Morgan wrote:
I have a message in a moderation queue. It's
The problem is more likely in the MTA rather then mailman. Have you
checked the mailman logs? Do you have access to the MTA logs? Have you
tried sending an email outside of mailman?
Do you know aht the MTA is? common ones include postfix, sendmail,
qmail, and exim.
On 9/18/2016 2:05 AM,
There is a LOT of broken software that will refuse rfc compliant email
addresses as they do not properly follow the standards. The + sign has
been in use and part of the rfc's for at least 30 years. I've found
that using the underscore '_' will work when the plus '+' sign does not,
however
On 7/13/2016 12:16 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 12, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
[snip end of life comments]
One thing that makes end of life either easier to handle or harder is:
1) Documentation of the changes and the new system.
2) Conversion aids. At least a program to
I had a customer with that problem. We ended up using individual emails
and adding the email address to the footer. I don't remember the field,
something user or user- something. I had a program to scan those
reports for the tag and provide the list of addresses to the list
manager. I
some of the default groups for things, like
mailing lists.
On 5/20/2016 11:47 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 05/20/2016 05:35 AM, Richard Shetron wrote:
How do I turn on tracing to find the source of this error. The
interface worked until I told check_perms to fix permissions so I'm sure
How do I turn on tracing to find the source of this error. The
interface worked until I told check_perms to fix permissions so I'm sure
there is a permission issue. Also the qrunner won't run, which I also
suspect is a permission error. My partner who did the install has
retired for medical
That is correct. The lists are current news announcements so only the
list owner posts to the list. The sample headers I got look legit as
far as I can tell. They redacted all the email/destination information
that would id the receiving system/email.
The original lists are old enough to not
I looked through the list admin manual and didn't see anything about
reconfirming a list. Is there an easy way to have mailman reconfirm a list?
I have a list that has been in use for 5+years and all of a sudden maps
is saying I'm hitting a spam trap. The list has not been added to in at
least
I've searched the list and found enough related posts that this looks
like it should be simple just reinstall, hopefully with the original
PREFIX settings and probably diff the old and new mm_cfg.py files just
to catch all the changes/new features/etc.
I have visual problems so my eyes often go
I'd suggest trying ps -auxww|grep mailman to seem if any mailman
processes are running, this assumes mailman runs as its own user id.
Some installs use the username list or lists instead of mailman.
If nothing show up then I'd check:
1) /etc/postfix/*.cf and /etc/postfix/transport and diff
I've noticed that if mailman is stopped/crashes/system reboot/etc. and
there is anything in mailman/qfiles/maildir/cur that stuff seems to just
hang in mailman until you stop mailman, clear this directory, and then
restart mailman. May not be your problem but try checking it.
you might also
I'm having problems with DOMAIN not found errors. Is there anyway to
edit/remove them from the qfiles/out .pck files? They don't seem to be
getting purged by mailman and hang around way too long.
I'm using postfix and mailman 2.1.12 under ubuntu 8.04.
I found item 4.20 in the FAQ, but I'm
I can't say what others do, but we carefully vet people before setting
up a list for someone. One of my email addresses is on every list we
host so I get a copy of everything sent. I use thunderbird and have it
filter all the mailing list traffic to a separate mailbox. Once the
list if
On 4/29/2013 6:44 AM, Adam McGreggor wrote:
[snip]
+1. Even 5000 seems to be the threshold these days, for unknown
netblocks.
Each has their own limit and sometimes it is based on history, sometimes
on number reported as spam. You can send 100k emails and if 1000 are
reported as spam you
On 11/5/2012 8:02 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
I deleted a mailing list using rmlist. However, mailman continues to
send out messages to the recipients on this list, and I can't seem to
make it stop. There's ~~ 3000 pending deliveries, so I'd really rather
that they
Yes I've tried to research via google, etc. I've run through the page at:
http://wiki.list.org/display/DOC/4.78+Troubleshooting-+No+mail+going+out+to+lists+members
I'm running ubuntu with mailman 2.1.14 and things seem to be taking
forever. Until a few days ago things were running fine.
What does this line really mean and why does it take so long to run?
Oct 23 06:03:01 2012 (1870)
7.0.1.0.0.20121016133607.0469b...@marchreport.com
smtp to marchreport_daily_alert_ctc10 for 2 recips, completed in 168.022
seconds
Thanks
--
I played with some settings and did some restarts and things look better:
Oct 24 17:13:22 2012 (5464)
7.0.1.0.0.20121023125107.046bd...@marchreport.com smtp to
marchreport_daily_alert_ctc01 for 3379 recips, completed in 151.441 seconds
Oct 24 17:16:11 2012 (5464)
30 matches
Mail list logo
