On 05/03/2014 11:30 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I'm pleased to announce the final release for Mailman 2.1.18.
It appears that the from_is_list and dmarc_moderation_actions Wrap
Message actions may run afoul of this issue
http://bugs.python.org/issue7970 in the Python email library in
versions older
Le 06/05/2014 01:42, Mark Sapiro a écrit :
The test list's high watermark for the newsgroup is 31. This means no
posts prior to #32 in the newsgroup will be gated to the list.
ok. I suspected some sort of thing like this
Use bin/withlist and do the following
$ bin/withlist -l test
Loading
Le 06/05/2014 01:42, Mark Sapiro a écrit :
$ bin/withlist -l test
well...I'm cursed :-(
this worked with the test list, but not with the main list!
same symptoms: list is linux-31
linux-31 newsgroup works
linux-31 mailman list works
post to the list go to the newsgroup
but posts to the
I am running Mailman version 2.1.12.
When I change my templates in /usr/lib/mailman/templates/site/da/ (like
admlogin.html) I see the changes taking effect (immediately, even though I
didn't restart Mailman), but any changes I make to the Archive templates
located in the same directory doesn't
I understand now, fake warnings for phishing. As for not being taken in, I
haven't yet, but I'm sure it would be possible to create one that I would
assume to be genuine.
Peter Shute
Sent from my iPad
On 6 May 2014, at 3:15 pm, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Peter Shute
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
On May 06, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
No, the point is that a phishing mail with
From: Chase Bank Customer Service serv...@chase.com.invalid
will sail right past DMARC, as currently set up.
So too will serv...@chase.com.ru without Mailman ever getting involved, and I
bet
On 05/05/2014 11:52 PM, jdd wrote:
but posts to the newsgroup do not reach the list
fromusenet logs
May 06 08:43:47 2014 (27035) linux-31: [1..12]
May 06 08:43:47 2014 (27035) gating linux-31 articles [12..12]
May 06 08:43:47 2014 (27035) posted to list linux-31: 12
May 06
On 05/06/2014 06:06 AM, Richard Shetron wrote:
The original lists are old enough to not have been confirmed. The goal
would be to send a confirmation email to everyone on the list and
unsubscribe anyone who does not re-confirm within a reasonable time, say
1 week.
You would have to do
Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
No, the point is that a phishing mail with
From: Chase Bank Customer Service serv...@chase.com.invalid
will sail right past DMARC, as currently set up
It will sail past people using modern mail clients, too, by which I include
web mail
A critical incompatibility between the Mailman 2.1.18 final release and
Python versions older than 2.6.5 or thereabouts affecting the DMARC Wrap
Message action was discovered and fixed. This incompatibility also
existed in the 2.1.16 and 2.1.17 releases.
Thus, I have released Mailman 2.1.18-1
Le 06/05/2014 17:10, Mark Sapiro a écrit :
There is no problem with gate_news. gate_news says it delivered all 12
messages from the news group to the list.
well... where are them?
What's in Mailman's other logs? Were these posts to news that didn't
come from the list in the first place?
On 05/06/2014 02:04 AM, Henrik Rasmussen wrote:
When I change my templates in /usr/lib/mailman/templates/site/da/ (like
admlogin.html) I see the changes taking effect (immediately, even though I
didn't restart Mailman), but any changes I make to the Archive templates
located in the same
On 05/06/2014 10:58 AM, jdd wrote:
Le 06/05/2014 17:10, Mark Sapiro a écrit :
There is no problem with gate_news. gate_news says it delivered all 12
messages from the news group to the list.
well... where are them?
Actually, I was mistaken. The log messages you posted say only that it
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.net wrote:
A critical incompatibility between the Mailman 2.1.18 final release and
Python versions older than 2.6.5 or thereabouts affecting the DMARC Wrap
Message action was discovered and fixed. This incompatibility also
existed in the
Greetings...
So I run a bunch of mailing lists, with a bunch of people who are not
technically adept whatsoever. (I am not getting list posts! That's
because you set yourself to no mail What's no mail? It means you set
yourself to be a member of the list, but not to get any email from it.
Oh
On 05/06/2014 12:47 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
So I updated to 2.1.18-1 today. Now we have a Reply-To that has the
poster's email and the list's email address.
A few of the lists I run block emails with more than one recipient,
Do you mean Privacy options... - Recipient filters -
On 5/6/14, 4:29 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
Do you mean Privacy options... - Recipient filters -
max_num_recipients = 2
If so, ouch, but what do you do now when people reply-all to posts.
Don't those replies get held?
Indeed. They get rejected. Policy on a couple particular lists. No cc's,
no
On 05/06/2014 02:17 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
Fair enough. So, basically I'm fsck'd. Set the lists to be
anonymous_list or set an explicit reply-to to be the lists and hope
that strips out the extraneous reply-to entry.
I went back and forth with this. Initially, if first_strip_reply_to was
Yes
On 5/6/14, 5:31 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I went back and forth with this. Initially, if first_strip_reply_to was
Yes and reply_goes_to_list was This list or Explicit address, I didn't
put the poster's address in Reply-To:
I finally decided it was of overriding importance to expose the posters
On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 14:31 -0700, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I am willing to consider changing this, either to treat Reply-To:
differently for Wrap Message since the original headers are in the
wrapped message in that case, or to just go back to not adding the
poster's address to Reply-To: as in my
On 05/06/2014 02:36 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
On 5/6/14, 5:31 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I could always add yet another setting, but I hate that idea for
multiple reasons.
Can there be an option somewhere in between anonymous_list and
reply_goes_to_list? One where it can strip the poster's email
Is the existing change (making sure the poster's address is in the
reply-to) available in a patch? I checked launchpad but if it's there I
couldn't find it. I'd like to see if I can apply it to 2.1.17 while waiting
for cPanel to upgrade to 2.1.18.
FWIW, I'd vote against a rollback to the earlier
On 05/06/2014 02:52 PM, Russell Clemings wrote:
Is the existing change (making sure the poster's address is in the
reply-to) available in a patch? I checked launchpad but if it's there I
couldn't find it. I'd like to see if I can apply it to 2.1.17 while
waiting for cPanel to upgrade to
On May 06, 2014, at 05:17 PM, Glenn Sieb wrote:
Fair enough. So, basically I'm fsck'd. Set the lists to be
anonymous_list or set an explicit reply-to to be the lists and hope
that strips out the extraneous reply-to entry.
Yes, and sadly it's forced on us by external policies.
I must admit that
Barry Warsaw writes:
On May 06, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
No, the point is that a phishing mail with
From: Chase Bank Customer Service serv...@chase.com.invalid
will sail right past DMARC, as currently set up.
So too will serv...@chase.com.ru without
Glenn Sieb writes:
So I updated to 2.1.18-1 today. Now we have a Reply-To that has the
poster's email and the list's email address.
A few of the lists I run block emails with more than one recipient, so
now this is going to be an adventure. (Ok, more like a nightmare, as
right now it
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The DMARC WG advocates putting list-post in From in place
of a DMARC p=reject address. I advocate accepting their
advice for stock Mailman, and avoiding other non-conforming
workarounds until the market demands them. If it gets noisy,
feel free to cave in
28 matches
Mail list logo
