Mailman 3 December 2005 - Mailman-coders

[ mailman-Feature Requests-1387243 ] option to discard messages that lack explicit destination
by SourceForge.net Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Feature Requests item #1387243, was opened at 2005-12-21 11:01 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=1387243&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Matt Swift (msswift) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: option to discard messages that lack explicit destination Initial Comment: The configurable variable require_explicit_destination is a boolean that selects whether to hold a message for moderation if neither the list address nor any aliases appear in the To: or Cc: headers. On certain lists I manage, a lot of spam is sent to the lists via BCC:. Setting this variable keeps this spam off the list, which is great, but I spend a lot of time discarding the spam. I can't simply discard all messages held for moderation, because there are occasional legitimate messages held for another reason that I want to accept. So I have to trawl through it all. Therefore, please make the require_explicit_destination setting offer the familiar choices of allow, hold, reject, and discard. I'd be happy if you added just "discard" without adding "reject", but the full four choices would be consistent with the rest of Mailman. This will save me a lot of time, and I would think many other users are in the same situation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=1387243&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1181161 ] Approved: only removed from text/plain part
by SourceForge.net Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Bugs item #1181161, was opened at 2005-04-11 17:54 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by msapiro You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1181161&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: mail delivery Group: 2.1 beta >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Jim Tittsler (jtittsler) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Approved: only removed from text/plain part Initial Comment: If someone uses the "Approved: in the first line of the message" scheme, the line including the list password is only removed from the first text/plain part. It might be better to iterate over all text/* parts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2005-12-20 19:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 Fixed in CVS for 2.1.7rc1 and 2.2. We still require the Approve(d): <password> to be the first non-blank line in the first text/plain part (if it's not an actual header), but once it's found in the first text/plain part, we remove it from every text/* part in which we can find it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1181161&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1384535 ] Mailman CGI Web Pages Inaccessible
by SourceForge.net Dec. 18, 2005

Dec. 18, 2005

Bugs item #1384535, was opened at 2005-12-18 13:46 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1384535&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Web/CGI Group: 2.1 (stable) Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Anthony Tibbs (tibbsa) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Mailman CGI Web Pages Inaccessible Initial Comment: The web pages generated by the Mailman GUI and CGI modules do not conform to accessibility standards in any way, shape, or form, and are almost entirely useless from the point of view of a blind or visually impaired user. The primary problem I have, is that the various radio buttons (for defer, accept, reject, etc.) are NOT assigned to their respective labels (using <label>/<input> matching), and thus screen readers have absolutely no way of figuring out what button goes with what label. As such, it is impossible for someone (who isn't already intimately familiar with the user interface) to actually work with it. Are there any plans to actually work on this at some point? I'm in a bit of a pinch right now, and may try to hack some <label>'s into my own code, but.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1384535&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Patches-1287546 ] Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines
by SourceForge.net Dec. 18, 2005

Dec. 18, 2005

Patches item #1287546, was opened at 2005-09-11 10:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by markonen You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: mail delivery Group: Mailman 2.1 Status: Closed Resolution: Accepted Priority: 5 Submitted By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines Initial Comment: This simple patch removes the header lines containing keys used in DomainKeys (Yahoo) and DKIM. The keys, if left in the header, will make the email seem forged or altered to the recipient, since Mailman alters header/body info. If the keys are removed, the MTA will generate new keys (if this is installed on the host). -Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marko Karppinen (markonen) Date: 2005-12-18 14:42 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406492 Yup, I have DomainKeys working with Mailman. Here's an example DomainKeys header of a message that passed through Mailman just fine: DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=karppinen.fi; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=Jjt8k25KetlHzapxG93zNgC5WmN9UedMi +WrlZGLW2WDhk72WWvj63xM/ LJIZHvx2heeMbm0gxgMdZ8MuUXn8bRIB0STCLEALHBP4Oq2kbDZpcPTweLIxsL iH1h6I123ekPNTsB0LPPzDDlfPBjbHMcCekBiTtF+VcNu2HCbLhs= As you can see, it's possible to add headers like Reply-To without breaking the signature. (The choice of headers to sign in the original message is largely up to the implementation. I have a feeling that the implementations that sign only the absolutely necessary headers will survive better in the marketplace.) I think enterprises will adopt DKIM for the anti-spoofing benefits without much concern for things like their employees' participation on mailing lists external to the organization. In such a scenario, it's the mailing lists' responsibility to try and ensure that people from such protected domains can still participate. Anyway, thanks for looking into this! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-12-17 20:51 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 If it's possible to have Mailman pass the message and header through in a way that does not impact DKIM/DomainKeys, that's certainly an interesting idea. I wonder, though, if header changes required when a message is forwarded via a mailing list would always be compatible. Anyway, this as an option is certainly worth exploring. Because of things like mailing lists, I do wonder if things like DKIM and DomainKeys (and even more so SPF - I cannot believe there as been as much adoption as there has been of SPF!) will ever be viable. It seems that to get the benefit, one would need to set up strict policies, but then one risks losing mail through mailing lists, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marko Karppinen (markonen) Date: 2005-12-16 21:23 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406492 I'm currently using mailman 2.1.2, and with it, DomainKeys works OK for plain text messages if we disable any subject mangling, list footers etc. It doesn't work with attachments, but I've understood that this is because of some MIME mangling bugs that have since been fixed. So, I was looking forward to the case 1) working fully (even with attachments) with a current mailman version, but this patch will apparently prevent that. DomainKeys is, of course, more brittle than unprotected email, but I think its impact on intermediate systems is much smaller than with SPF or Sender-ID. Mail forwarders only have to forward messages as-is, not do any SPF-specific path mangling magic. I don't deny that removing the DomainKeys headers is a useful option to have, however -- but I think it should be an option. (Alternatively, we could look at this from the other direction and make the "don't touch anything" an option. i.e. have a single master switch that would turn off subject and body mangling and preserve DomainKeys headers as-is. S/MIME is the other important use case for this.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-12-16 19:01 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 Markonen, I agree that the whole DKIM/DomainKeys issue is a bit of a mess. It makes me wonder about the future of such email verification schemes. It seems that any mail list mechanism has the potential for breaking them. As to your concern, I believe we are OK in that #2 already happens. Mailman adds a "Sender:" header line, and DKIM/DomainKeys will use this as the source domain to determine if signing is expected, etc. So if the sender host re-signs the email, things should be OK. The problem here, of course, is that the receiver will only know that the email came from the mail list host - not that the original email came from the original author - less than ideal. I was enthusiastic about DKIM, but I am a little less so now due to these shortcomings. Your #1 is probably not possible, since I doubt we could expect Mailman to never modify body/headers... right? -Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marko Karppinen (markonen) Date: 2005-12-16 17:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406492 I think this is problematic. For intra-organizational lists, removing the DomainKeys header works as advertised. However, if a person from a DomainKeys-enabled domain posts onto an external list, there is a potential for error. If the sender's domain's DomainKeys settings specify that the domain does not send unsigned mail, external MTAs can and will drop an email from that domain if the DomainKeys headers are removed. To make DomainKeys work with mailman as expected, admins have two possibilities: 1) Deliver the message as-is, without modifying the Subject header or message body (or any header indicated to be signed). The original DomainKeys signature will then work. 2) If modifying the message is necessary, the mailing list will have to rewrite the From: header in order not to claim that the message originated in the DomainKeys -protected sender domain. Removing the DomainKeys header will only be relevant in the case 2) above. For 1) -- the preferred solution for many lists -- it is actively harmful. Therefore, automatically removing the DomainKeys header is NOT the way to go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2005-09-13 00:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Applied to both Mailman 2.1 branch and trunk (2.2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-09-11 10:09 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 Attached is the patch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Patches-1287546 ] Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines
by SourceForge.net Dec. 17, 2005

Dec. 17, 2005

Patches item #1287546, was opened at 2005-09-11 01:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by skyrush You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: mail delivery Group: Mailman 2.1 Status: Closed Resolution: Accepted Priority: 5 Submitted By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines Initial Comment: This simple patch removes the header lines containing keys used in DomainKeys (Yahoo) and DKIM. The keys, if left in the header, will make the email seem forged or altered to the recipient, since Mailman alters header/body info. If the keys are removed, the MTA will generate new keys (if this is installed on the host). -Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-12-17 11:51 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 If it's possible to have Mailman pass the message and header through in a way that does not impact DKIM/DomainKeys, that's certainly an interesting idea. I wonder, though, if header changes required when a message is forwarded via a mailing list would always be compatible. Anyway, this as an option is certainly worth exploring. Because of things like mailing lists, I do wonder if things like DKIM and DomainKeys (and even more so SPF - I cannot believe there as been as much adoption as there has been of SPF!) will ever be viable. It seems that to get the benefit, one would need to set up strict policies, but then one risks losing mail through mailing lists, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marko Karppinen (markonen) Date: 2005-12-16 12:23 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406492 I'm currently using mailman 2.1.2, and with it, DomainKeys works OK for plain text messages if we disable any subject mangling, list footers etc. It doesn't work with attachments, but I've understood that this is because of some MIME mangling bugs that have since been fixed. So, I was looking forward to the case 1) working fully (even with attachments) with a current mailman version, but this patch will apparently prevent that. DomainKeys is, of course, more brittle than unprotected email, but I think its impact on intermediate systems is much smaller than with SPF or Sender-ID. Mail forwarders only have to forward messages as-is, not do any SPF-specific path mangling magic. I don't deny that removing the DomainKeys headers is a useful option to have, however -- but I think it should be an option. (Alternatively, we could look at this from the other direction and make the "don't touch anything" an option. i.e. have a single master switch that would turn off subject and body mangling and preserve DomainKeys headers as-is. S/MIME is the other important use case for this.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-12-16 10:01 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 Markonen, I agree that the whole DKIM/DomainKeys issue is a bit of a mess. It makes me wonder about the future of such email verification schemes. It seems that any mail list mechanism has the potential for breaking them. As to your concern, I believe we are OK in that #2 already happens. Mailman adds a "Sender:" header line, and DKIM/DomainKeys will use this as the source domain to determine if signing is expected, etc. So if the sender host re-signs the email, things should be OK. The problem here, of course, is that the receiver will only know that the email came from the mail list host - not that the original email came from the original author - less than ideal. I was enthusiastic about DKIM, but I am a little less so now due to these shortcomings. Your #1 is probably not possible, since I doubt we could expect Mailman to never modify body/headers... right? -Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marko Karppinen (markonen) Date: 2005-12-16 08:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406492 I think this is problematic. For intra-organizational lists, removing the DomainKeys header works as advertised. However, if a person from a DomainKeys-enabled domain posts onto an external list, there is a potential for error. If the sender's domain's DomainKeys settings specify that the domain does not send unsigned mail, external MTAs can and will drop an email from that domain if the DomainKeys headers are removed. To make DomainKeys work with mailman as expected, admins have two possibilities: 1) Deliver the message as-is, without modifying the Subject header or message body (or any header indicated to be signed). The original DomainKeys signature will then work. 2) If modifying the message is necessary, the mailing list will have to rewrite the From: header in order not to claim that the message originated in the DomainKeys -protected sender domain. Removing the DomainKeys header will only be relevant in the case 2) above. For 1) -- the preferred solution for many lists -- it is actively harmful. Therefore, automatically removing the DomainKeys header is NOT the way to go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2005-09-12 15:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Applied to both Mailman 2.1 branch and trunk (2.2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-09-11 01:09 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 Attached is the patch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Patches-1287546 ] Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines
by SourceForge.net Dec. 16, 2005

Dec. 16, 2005

Patches item #1287546, was opened at 2005-09-11 10:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by markonen You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: mail delivery Group: Mailman 2.1 Status: Closed Resolution: Accepted Priority: 5 Submitted By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines Initial Comment: This simple patch removes the header lines containing keys used in DomainKeys (Yahoo) and DKIM. The keys, if left in the header, will make the email seem forged or altered to the recipient, since Mailman alters header/body info. If the keys are removed, the MTA will generate new keys (if this is installed on the host). -Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marko Karppinen (markonen) Date: 2005-12-16 21:23 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406492 I'm currently using mailman 2.1.2, and with it, DomainKeys works OK for plain text messages if we disable any subject mangling, list footers etc. It doesn't work with attachments, but I've understood that this is because of some MIME mangling bugs that have since been fixed. So, I was looking forward to the case 1) working fully (even with attachments) with a current mailman version, but this patch will apparently prevent that. DomainKeys is, of course, more brittle than unprotected email, but I think its impact on intermediate systems is much smaller than with SPF or Sender-ID. Mail forwarders only have to forward messages as-is, not do any SPF-specific path mangling magic. I don't deny that removing the DomainKeys headers is a useful option to have, however -- but I think it should be an option. (Alternatively, we could look at this from the other direction and make the "don't touch anything" an option. i.e. have a single master switch that would turn off subject and body mangling and preserve DomainKeys headers as-is. S/MIME is the other important use case for this.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-12-16 19:01 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 Markonen, I agree that the whole DKIM/DomainKeys issue is a bit of a mess. It makes me wonder about the future of such email verification schemes. It seems that any mail list mechanism has the potential for breaking them. As to your concern, I believe we are OK in that #2 already happens. Mailman adds a "Sender:" header line, and DKIM/DomainKeys will use this as the source domain to determine if signing is expected, etc. So if the sender host re-signs the email, things should be OK. The problem here, of course, is that the receiver will only know that the email came from the mail list host - not that the original email came from the original author - less than ideal. I was enthusiastic about DKIM, but I am a little less so now due to these shortcomings. Your #1 is probably not possible, since I doubt we could expect Mailman to never modify body/headers... right? -Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marko Karppinen (markonen) Date: 2005-12-16 17:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406492 I think this is problematic. For intra-organizational lists, removing the DomainKeys header works as advertised. However, if a person from a DomainKeys-enabled domain posts onto an external list, there is a potential for error. If the sender's domain's DomainKeys settings specify that the domain does not send unsigned mail, external MTAs can and will drop an email from that domain if the DomainKeys headers are removed. To make DomainKeys work with mailman as expected, admins have two possibilities: 1) Deliver the message as-is, without modifying the Subject header or message body (or any header indicated to be signed). The original DomainKeys signature will then work. 2) If modifying the message is necessary, the mailing list will have to rewrite the From: header in order not to claim that the message originated in the DomainKeys -protected sender domain. Removing the DomainKeys header will only be relevant in the case 2) above. For 1) -- the preferred solution for many lists -- it is actively harmful. Therefore, automatically removing the DomainKeys header is NOT the way to go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2005-09-13 00:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Applied to both Mailman 2.1 branch and trunk (2.2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-09-11 10:09 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 Attached is the patch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Patches-1287546 ] Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines
by SourceForge.net Dec. 16, 2005

Dec. 16, 2005

Patches item #1287546, was opened at 2005-09-11 01:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by skyrush You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: mail delivery Group: Mailman 2.1 Status: Closed Resolution: Accepted Priority: 5 Submitted By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines Initial Comment: This simple patch removes the header lines containing keys used in DomainKeys (Yahoo) and DKIM. The keys, if left in the header, will make the email seem forged or altered to the recipient, since Mailman alters header/body info. If the keys are removed, the MTA will generate new keys (if this is installed on the host). -Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-12-16 10:01 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 Markonen, I agree that the whole DKIM/DomainKeys issue is a bit of a mess. It makes me wonder about the future of such email verification schemes. It seems that any mail list mechanism has the potential for breaking them. As to your concern, I believe we are OK in that #2 already happens. Mailman adds a "Sender:" header line, and DKIM/DomainKeys will use this as the source domain to determine if signing is expected, etc. So if the sender host re-signs the email, things should be OK. The problem here, of course, is that the receiver will only know that the email came from the mail list host - not that the original email came from the original author - less than ideal. I was enthusiastic about DKIM, but I am a little less so now due to these shortcomings. Your #1 is probably not possible, since I doubt we could expect Mailman to never modify body/headers... right? -Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marko Karppinen (markonen) Date: 2005-12-16 08:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406492 I think this is problematic. For intra-organizational lists, removing the DomainKeys header works as advertised. However, if a person from a DomainKeys-enabled domain posts onto an external list, there is a potential for error. If the sender's domain's DomainKeys settings specify that the domain does not send unsigned mail, external MTAs can and will drop an email from that domain if the DomainKeys headers are removed. To make DomainKeys work with mailman as expected, admins have two possibilities: 1) Deliver the message as-is, without modifying the Subject header or message body (or any header indicated to be signed). The original DomainKeys signature will then work. 2) If modifying the message is necessary, the mailing list will have to rewrite the From: header in order not to claim that the message originated in the DomainKeys -protected sender domain. Removing the DomainKeys header will only be relevant in the case 2) above. For 1) -- the preferred solution for many lists -- it is actively harmful. Therefore, automatically removing the DomainKeys header is NOT the way to go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2005-09-12 15:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Applied to both Mailman 2.1 branch and trunk (2.2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-09-11 01:09 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 Attached is the patch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Patches-1287546 ] Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines
by SourceForge.net Dec. 16, 2005

Dec. 16, 2005

Patches item #1287546, was opened at 2005-09-11 10:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by markonen You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: mail delivery Group: Mailman 2.1 Status: Closed Resolution: Accepted Priority: 5 Submitted By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Remove DomainKeys (and similar) header lines Initial Comment: This simple patch removes the header lines containing keys used in DomainKeys (Yahoo) and DKIM. The keys, if left in the header, will make the email seem forged or altered to the recipient, since Mailman alters header/body info. If the keys are removed, the MTA will generate new keys (if this is installed on the host). -Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Marko Karppinen (markonen) Date: 2005-12-16 17:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406492 I think this is problematic. For intra-organizational lists, removing the DomainKeys header works as advertised. However, if a person from a DomainKeys-enabled domain posts onto an external list, there is a potential for error. If the sender's domain's DomainKeys settings specify that the domain does not send unsigned mail, external MTAs can and will drop an email from that domain if the DomainKeys headers are removed. To make DomainKeys work with mailman as expected, admins have two possibilities: 1) Deliver the message as-is, without modifying the Subject header or message body (or any header indicated to be signed). The original DomainKeys signature will then work. 2) If modifying the message is necessary, the mailing list will have to rewrite the From: header in order not to claim that the message originated in the DomainKeys -protected sender domain. Removing the DomainKeys header will only be relevant in the case 2) above. For 1) -- the preferred solution for many lists -- it is actively harmful. Therefore, automatically removing the DomainKeys header is NOT the way to go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2005-09-13 00:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Applied to both Mailman 2.1 branch and trunk (2.2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Joe Peterson (skyrush) Date: 2005-09-11 10:09 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=738814 Attached is the patch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1287546&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Patches-1290317 ] add date field to the mail list archive index page
by SourceForge.net Dec. 16, 2005

Dec. 16, 2005

Patches item #1290317, was opened at 2005-09-13 10:37 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by elfern You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1290317&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Pipermail Group: Mailman 2.1 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Matt Ryanczak (ryanczak) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: add date field to the mail list archive index page Initial Comment: I was asked to make the date for each message in a mailman archive be visible in the index for that month. This required that I modify HyperArch.py and the template file archidxentry.html. I thought others might find this useful so here is the relevant patch for the mailman-2.1.6 source tree. Apply the following patch to your mailman-2.1.6 source tree and build as usual. patch -p0 < date-in-archive-index.patch. This patch will modify the following files: mailman-2.1.6/Mailman/Archiver/HyperArch.py mailman-2.1.6/templates/ca/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/en/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/es/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/eu/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/fr/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/hr/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/hu/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/it/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/ja/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/lt/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/pl/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/pt/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/pt_BR/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/ro/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/ru/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/sl/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/sr/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/tr/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/uk/archidxentry.html mailman-2.1.6/templates/zh_CN/archidxentry.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: elfern (elfern) Date: 2005-12-15 16:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1406050 Is it possible to put a tarball of these patches ? I downloaded these patches, and did: patch -p0 < date-in-archive-index.patch This reported: Looks like a unified context diff. File to patch: mailman-2.1.6/Mailman/Archiver/HyperArch.py Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R [yes] Apply anyway? [no] yes Hunk #2 failed at line 1032. Hunk #3 failed at line 1. Hunk #4 failed at line 1. Hunk #5 failed at line 1. Hunk #6 failed at line 1. Hunk #7 failed at line 1. Hunk #8 failed at line 1. Hunk #9 failed at line 1. Hunk #10 failed at line 1. Hunk #11 failed at line 1. Hunk #12 failed at line 1. Hunk #13 failed at line 1. Hunk #14 failed at line 1. Hunk #15 failed at line 1. Hunk #16 failed at line 1. Hunk #17 failed at line 1. Hunk #18 failed at line 1. Hunk #19 failed at line 1. Hunk #20 failed at line 1. Hunk #21 failed at line 1. Hunk #22 failed at line 1. 21 out of 22 hunks failed: saving rejects to mailman- 2.1.6/Mailman/Archiver/HyperArch.py.rej done Now, I am not sure if the patch got applied. The timestamp on HyperArch.py is updated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=1290317&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1204386 ] check_perms doesn't ensure aliases.db is group-writeable
by SourceForge.net Dec. 13, 2005

Dec. 13, 2005

Bugs item #1204386, was opened at 2005-05-18 16:01 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by tkikuchi You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1204386&group_… Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: configuring/installing Group: 2.1 beta >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Graham Klyne (grahamk) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: check_perms doesn't ensure aliases.db is group-writeable Initial Comment: Problem reported for mailman 2.1.6rc4 With postfix 2:2.0.16-14.RHEL3 When installing mailman 2.1.6rc1 using postfix MTA and "Integrating Postfix and Mailman" as described inthe installation document, I encountered a problem that the aliases.db file was created without group write capability. This was not detected by check_perms. (Even on re-reading, it's not obvious to me that g+w permissions are required, though that became pretty obvious when I tracked the error log failure report when attempting to create a new mailing list.) Because I messed around a bit with that installation, I've verified the problem with check_perms on a working 2.1.6rc4 installation, by resetting the groupwrite permission, thus: The following is executed as user mailman in dirtectory /var/mailman/data: [[ bash-2.05b$ ls -al total 60 drwxrwsr-x 2 mailman mailman 4096 May 18 14:31 . drwxrwsr-x 9 mailman mailman 4096 Apr 21 18:36 .. -rw-r----- 1 mailman mailman 41 Apr 29 13:54 adm.pw -rw-rw---- 1 mailman mailman 4922 May 4 16:25 aliases -rw-rw---- 1 mailman mailman 12288 May 4 16:25 aliases.db -rw-r----- 1 mailman mailman 41 Apr 22 15:07 creator.pw -rw-r--r-- 1 mailman mailman 10 May 18 14:32 last_mailman_version -rw-rw---- 1 mailman mailman 6 May 12 09:19 master-qrunner.pid -rw-r--r-- 1 mailman mailman 14110 May 18 14:31 sitelist.cfg bash-2.05b$ bash-2.05b$ /home/mailman/bin/check_perms No problems found (This is a normal working configuration from which I started) bash-2.05b$ chmod g-w aliases* bash-2.05b$ /home/mailman/bin/check_perms /var/mailman/data/aliases permissions must be 066x (got 0100640) Problems found: 1 Re-run as mailman (or root) with -f flag to fix (check_perms notices the problem with aliases, but not with aliases.db) bash-2.05b$ ls -al total 60 drwxrwsr-x 2 mailman mailman 4096 May 18 14:31 . drwxrwsr-x 9 mailman mailman 4096 Apr 21 18:36 .. -rw-r----- 1 mailman mailman 41 Apr 29 13:54 adm.pw -rw-r----- 1 mailman mailman 4922 May 4 16:25 aliases -rw-r----- 1 mailman mailman 12288 May 4 16:25 aliases.db -rw-r----- 1 mailman mailman 41 Apr 22 15:07 creator.pw -rw-r--r-- 1 mailman mailman 10 May 18 14:32 last_mailman_version -rw-rw---- 1 mailman mailman 6 May 12 09:19 master-qrunner.pid -rw-r--r-- 1 mailman mailman 14110 May 18 14:31 sitelist.cfg bash-2.05b$ chmod g+w aliases bash-2.05b$ /home/mailman/bin/check_perms No problems found bash-2.05b$ ls -al total 60 drwxrwsr-x 2 mailman mailman 4096 May 18 14:31 . drwxrwsr-x 9 mailman mailman 4096 Apr 21 18:36 .. -rw-r----- 1 mailman mailman 41 Apr 29 13:54 adm.pw -rw-rw---- 1 mailman mailman 4922 May 4 16:25 aliases -rw-r----- 1 mailman mailman 12288 May 4 16:25 aliases.db -rw-r----- 1 mailman mailman 41 Apr 22 15:07 creator.pw -rw-r--r-- 1 mailman mailman 10 May 18 14:32 last_mailman_version -rw-rw---- 1 mailman mailman 6 May 12 09:19 master-qrunner.pid -rw-r--r-- 1 mailman mailman 14110 May 18 14:31 sitelist.cfg (No report from check_perms despite missing group write permission on aliases.db) ]] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Todd (beelzebozo) Date: 2005-12-11 19:57 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1386166 Patch against CVS (20051211) created. See https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1378270&group_id=… ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1204386&group_…

1 0