Mailman-coders February 2006

mailman-coders@python.org

1 participants
42 discussions

[ mailman-Bugs-1363422 ] Valid E-mails Rejected as Invalid

by SourceForge.net

Bugs item #1363422, was opened at 2005-11-22 06:26 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by m-a You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1363422&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: (un)subscribing Group: 2.1 (stable) Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 7 Submitted By: Tim Wilde (krellis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Valid E-mails Rejected as Invalid Initial Comment: I ran into a problem recently with sync_members. I was attempting to add a list of addresses that included "---tim---(a)krellis.org", but this address was rejected: bin/sync_members -a=no -f /usr/local/mailinglists/lists/system-status.txt system-status Invalid : ---tim---(a)krellis.org You must fix the preceding invalid addresses first. While this is an ODD address, it is perfectly legal, per section 3.4 of RFC 2822 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html). Rejecting a valid address like this seems like a pretty major problem to me. This was with MailMan 2.1.6 on FreeBSD 4. If there is any more information I can provide, please let me know. Regards, Tim Wilde ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthias Andree (m-a) Date: 2006-02-01 10:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2788 Mailman is not alone in rejecting messages that start with a "-" - some MTAs also do that, for instance, Postfix (but see Postfix's "allow_min_user" option). The reason is that too many sites mistake such addresses for sendmail command-line options, because most sendmail users are clueless and forget the "--" before the addresses. For that reason, it is rather unwise to use mail addresses that start with a "-" - while legal, it's not universally accepted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tim Wilde (krellis) Date: 2005-12-06 00:57 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1021966 This appears to be a problem with line 210 of Utils.py, in the ValidateEmail function: if _badchars.search(s) or s[0] == '-': raise Errors.MMHostileAddress, s MailMan is explicitly rejecting e-mails that start with a hyphen. Why? This is a perfectly legal e-mail address. If MailMan is using e-mail addresses in such an unsafe way that they could be interpreted as command line arguments, that's just absurd. I can't see any other reason to forbid a leading hyphen, though. Can anyone tell me if I will be safe removing this check, or if MailMan will blow up elsewhere? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1363422&group_…

15 years, 4 months

[ mailman-Bugs-1421285 ] 2.1.7 (VERP) mistakes delay notice for bounce

by SourceForge.net

Bugs item #1421285, was opened at 2006-02-01 10:24 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=1421285&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: bounce detection Group: 2.1 (stable) Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Matthias Andree (m-a) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: 2.1.7 (VERP) mistakes delay notice for bounce Initial Comment: Greetings, I just got the bounce action notice specified below. I am running Mailman 2.1.7 with SF Patch #1405790 on Python 2.3.4, SUSE Linux 9.2 i586, Postfix 2.2.9. It appears as though Mailman 2.1.7 were not properly detecting this apparently RFC-1894 compliant notice as a "delayed" notice which is definitely a "soft bounce", if it is supposed to contribute to the bounce score at all. I looked at Mailman 2.1.4 or so which appeared to make efforts to not count "delayed"/deferral notices at all, but that didn't work at the time for Postfix deferral notices and was IIRC fixed later. My setup is VERP enabled, uses VERP for almost everything and uses monthly reminders for this list. Jan 27 20:33:47 2006 (6794) leafnode-list: admin(a)example.com has stale bounce info, resetting Jan 27 21:57:08 2006 (6794) leafnode-list: admin(a)example.com already scored a bounce for date 27-Jan-2006 Jan 30 18:16:47 2006 (6794) leafnode-list: admin(a)example.com current bounce score: 2.0 Jan 30 19:40:06 2006 (6794) leafnode-list: admin(a)example.com already scored a bounce for date 30-Jan-2006 Feb 01 03:01:40 2006 (6794) leafnode-list: admin(a)example.com current bounce score: 3.0 Feb 01 03:01:41 2006 (6794) leafnode-list: admin(a)example.com disabling due to bounce score 3.0 >= 3.0 Feb 01 03:31:41 2006 (6794) leafnode-list: admin(a)example.com residual bounce received I masked the list host by ... and the subscriber's domain by example.com and the last two components of the IPv4 address by X, without loss of accuracy I hope, to protect the site from spammers. Can anyone shed any light why Mailman 2.1.7 with said patch considers the delay notice a "hard" bounce? I don't have time to do debugging right now (end of the month might work), but applying a patch will probably work. ----------- This is a Mailman mailing list bounce action notice: List: leafnode-list Member: admin(a)example.com Action: Subscription deaktiviert. Reason: Excessive or fatal bounces. The triggering bounce notice is attached below. Questions? Contact the Mailman site administrator at mailman@... From: MAILER-DAEMON@... (Mail Delivery System) Subject: Delayed Mail (still being retried) To: leafnode-list-bounces+admin=example.com@... Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 02:47:07 +0100 (CET) This is the Postfix program at host ... #################################################################### # THIS IS A WARNING ONLY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE. # #################################################################### Your message could not be delivered for 4.2 hours. It will be retried until it is 7.0 days old. For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The Postfix program <admin(a)example.com>: connect to mail.example.com[60.234.X.X]: Connection timed out Reporting-MTA: dns; ... X-Postfix-Queue-ID: C9BC24415A X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; leafnode-list-bounces+admin=example.com@... Arrival-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:55:44 +0100 (CET) Final-Recipient: rfc822; admin(a)example.com Action: delayed Status: 4.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; connect to mail.example.com[60.234.X.X]: Connection timed out Will-Retry-Until: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:55:44 +0100 (CET) [5. Undelivered Message Headers --- text/rfc822-headers] (elided) ------------------------- I pasted from Emacs/Gnus, and this is the mime structure as seen by Gnus, it looks intact. . 20060201T030141 [ 150: mailman(a)dt.e-tec] <* mixed> Bounce-Benachrichtigung . 20060201T030141 [ 14: mailman(a)dt.e-tec] <1 text> . 20060201T030141 [ 125: mailman(a)dt.e-tec] <2 rfc822> . 20060201T024707 [ 111: Mail Delivery Sy] <2.* report> Delayed Mail (still being retried) . 20060201T024707 [ 19: Mail Delivery Sy] <2.1 text> . 20060201T024707 [ 13: Mail Delivery Sy] <2.2 delivery-status> . 20060201T024707 [ 63: Mail Delivery Sy] <2.3 rfc822-headers> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1421285&group_…

15 years, 4 months

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Mailman-coders February 2006