Bugs item #1445630, was opened at 2006-03-08 05:06
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1445630&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 (stable)
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: chris-taylor (chris-taylor)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: /templates/de/verify.txt: encoding of special chars(umlaute)
Initial Comment:
In the last stable release of mailman-2.1.7 the
encoding of the special german characters (umlaute:
äöüÃÃÃ) in the file /templates/de/verify.txt is wrong.
When a confirm message is sent the recipient gets
strange characters for the german umlaute (e.g. ü
instead of ü).
I inserted the right characters in the file, now
everything seems fine. See attached file...
Regards Christian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-10 11:13
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
The template has been properly iso-8859-1 encoded for 2.1.8a1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-08 07:50
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
It looks like the /templates/de/verify.txt template we're
distributing is UTF-8 encoded. Is this the only one? I
looked at a couple of others and they appear to be
iso-8859-1 as they should be since that is Mailman's
character set for german language.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1445630&group_…
Bugs item #1421285, was opened at 2006-02-01 01:24
Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by msapiro
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: Closed
>Resolution: Fixed
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>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-10 11:10
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
Patch is included in 2.1.8a1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-07 08:26
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
It's only distantly related to bug 863989. That that bug has
been fixed in CVS, and in a sense, that fix is prerequisite
to fixing this bug in the way you suggest.
You suggest: "The message received at the VERP bounce
address could be put through the bounce parser the same way
as bounces to the generic bounce address to obtain one of
three results: 1. an address, 2. a reply "unparsable", 3. a
reply "stop". The former two would be subjected to bounce
processing, where in case (1) the VERP address would
override the address extracted from the message, case (3)
last would just discard the message."
This is very easy to do in code - only a line or two in
BounceRunner now that 863989 is fixed - but the overhead is
possibly significant considering we already have the address.
Also, it is not clear to me whether you would consider your
case (2) to be a bounce for the VERP address. I suggest that
if you do not, the results of the above would rarely be
different from just not doing VERP like addressing in the
first place, thus all I would do differently from current
CVS is discard the message in case (3). Here is how I would
patch the current CVS to do this (note that lines will
probably wrap):
@@ -197,7 +197,11 @@
return
# Try VERP detection first, since it's quick and easy
addrs = verp_bounce(mlist, msg)
- if not addrs:
+ if addrs:
+ # We have an address, but check if the message
is non-fatal.
+ if BouncerAPI.ScanMessages(mlist, msg) is
BouncerAPI.Stop:
+ return
+ else:
# See if this was a probe message.
token = verp_probe(mlist, msg)
if token:
This depends on the fix for bug 863989 which modifies
BounceRunner and BouncerAPI. It would help if you could test
this, although 2.1.8a1 is imminent.
Also, you mention in a comment "I am aware that this isn't
bullet-proof, that's why I suggested sending a probe message
with secret hash before disabling/unsubscribing a user a
long time ago." Isn't that what we currently do if
VERP_PROBES = Yes, and wouldn't that make a disable in this
situation much less likely in the first place?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Matthias Andree (m-a)
Date: 2006-03-07 06:32
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=2788
The Postfix maintainer's opinion is to continue ignoring the
Precedence: header. He writes that Mailman should heed
RFC-1894 info. See
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=postfix-users&m=114173451818447&w=1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Matthias Andree (m-a)
Date: 2006-03-07 00:19
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=2788
An MTA ignoring Precedence: headers is certainly NOT
misconfigured. According to RFC-2076 and 3834, this header
is non-standard, controversial, its interpretation varies
and its use is not encouraged.
I doubt Postfix implementors would care about such a
non-standard header, and shifting the responsibility for not
taking action in response to properly-formatted RFC-1894
DSNs towards MTA authors doesn't positively scale...
BTW, is this related to Bug #863989?
The message received at the VERP bounce address could be put
through the bounce parser the same way as bounces to the
generic bounce address to obtain one of three results: 1. an
address, 2. a reply "unparsable", 3. a reply "stop". The
former two would be subjected to bounce processing, where in
case (1) the VERP address would override the address
extracted from the message, case (3) last would just discard
the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw)
Date: 2006-03-04 06:41
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=12800
In general, an MTA is misconfigured if it sends a warning to
a message labeled Precedence:bulk and all Mailman mailing
list copies are so labeled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Matthias Andree (m-a)
Date: 2006-03-04 01:54
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=2788
VERP doesn't indicate the bounce status of a message, it is
a tool EXCLUSIVELY to determine the actual subscriber
address in the face of forwards, DNS aliases and everything,
to make sure that the list driver knows which subscriber to
attribute the bounce to.
Assuming any message sent to an address that looks like VERP
were a bounce is a security risk!
The message I'd reported was well-formed RFC-1894 and so the
parser would not have had any difficulties finding out it
should ignore the message.
I am aware that this isn't bullet-proof, that's why I
suggested sending a probe message with secret hash before
disabling/unsubscribing a user a long time ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-03 23:37
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
Unfortunately, this is the way VERP bounce processing is
handled. When a message is sent/returned to
listname-bounces+user=example.com@... it is scored as a
bounce for user(a)example.com (the VERPed address), and the
content of the message is never examined.
The theory is that the VERP address identifies the bouncing
address regardles of the recognizability of the notice
itself, so there is no attempt to recognize the type of notice.
It would be possible to run the returned message through the
recognizers and accept a recognizers determination that the
notice was non-fatal while still keeping the VERP address as
the address to use for the bounce report in the event that
the notice was not determined to be non-fatal, but that
wouldn't solve the problem for an unrecognized non-fatal
notice, and the whole idea behind VERP bounce processing is
that it allows skiping the recognition process.
It does seem wrong that a bounce is scored for a notice that
could be recognized as non-fatal, but there will always be a
grey area with notices that wouldn't be recognized as fatal
or non-fatal. If one decides to give the benefit of the
doubt in this grey area and not score a bounce, then we
revert to the non-VERP case in which only recognized bounces
are scored.
It seems that the real problem is that VERP bounce
processing isn't that good of an idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1421285&group_…
Bugs item #1444447, was opened at 2006-03-06 13:43
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1444447&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: command line scripts
Group: 2.1 (stable)
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Axel Beckert (xtaran)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: show_qfiles: 'str' object has no attribute 'as_string'
Initial Comment:
With mailman 2.1.5 and Python 2.4 on SuSE Linux 9.3,
show_qfiles throws an error:
python show_qfiles-2.1.7.orig ~/xchange/test.pck
====================> /home/abe/xchange/test.pck
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "show_qfiles-2.1.7.orig", line 74, in ?
main()
File "show_qfiles-2.1.7.orig", line 67, in main
sys.stdout.write(msg.as_string())
AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'as_string'
Removing the ".as_string()" from the source of
show_qfiles fixes the problem.
show_qfiles is still the same in 2.1.7 and still throws
this error. Tested with 2.1.7 and Python 2.4.1 under
SuSE Linux 10.0.
Patch:
--- show_qfiles-2.1.7.orig 2006-03-06
22:38:46.000000000 +0100
+++ show_qfiles-2.1.7 2006-03-06 22:40:27.000000000 +0100
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
fp = open(filename)
if filename.endswith(".pck"):
msg = load(fp)
- sys.stdout.write(msg.as_string())
+ sys.stdout.write(msg)
else:
sys.stdout.write(fp.read())
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-10 11:09
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
Patch included in 2.1.8a1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-06 15:20
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
Your patch will fix the show_qfiles for those entries in the
'in' queue that have unparsed message text, but it will
break it for all other entries that have a
Mailman.Message.Message instance.
Try the attached patch and see if it isn't better. Please
report back on what does and doesn't work for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1444447&group_…
Bugs item #1446859, was opened at 2006-03-09 16:45
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1446859&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 (stable)
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Bill Saunders (ws28)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Posters set to Mod, incorrectly Rejected should be Held
Initial Comment:
Mailman 2.1.6(slightly hacked)
SunOS xxx 5.8
Sendmail
I've setup a group nis_mailman_test.
1- Privacy options/Sender filters/Action to take when a
moderated member posts to the list is set to Hold.
2- <same>/By default, should new list member postings
be moderated is set to No
3- I've added my members via a script that calls
add_members with the options "-w n -a n".
4- So after adding the members, all members can post.
5- Change this by going into Membership
Management/Additional Member tasks/Set everyones
moderation... set to On.
> To review, before step 5, the mod column for all
members "mod" was unchecked. (At that point anyone
could post without admin/moderator assistance.) After
step 5 the mod column for all members is checked.
6- Checking the Privacy options/Sender filters/Action
to take when a moderated member posts to the list we
find that it is set to Hold
7- Also checking I thought there was a "should I tell
the user that their email is being held?" and if I
remember correctly this is set to Yes.
> so at this point if a member sends a post they SHOULD
get an email saying "I've held your email until the
moderator approves it".
> unfortunately at this point the member gets an email
stating: "The e-mail account does not exist at the
organization this message was sent to. Check the
e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to
find out the correct address."
ok so lets try something different
1- delete all users
2- change the Membership Management/Additional Member
tasks/Set everyones moderation from No to On
3- Add all of the users
4- attempt a post from a user
> this produces the correct behavior, an email is sent
to the member stating "hey Im holding this until
approved" AND the moderator gets an email "do you want
to approve this".
So the bug is that changing the users moderation flag
from off to on is NOT the same as subscribing a user
with the "Action to take when a moderated member posts
to the list" set on.
Bill
bsaunder2002 somwhereat <what a cowboy yells, when he
sees a pretty cowgirl(unless it's like Brokeback
mountain but you get the gist)>.com
read that spammers!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-09 17:20
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
<quote>
> unfortunately at this point the member gets an email
stating: "The e-mail account does not exist at the
organization this message was sent to. Check the
e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to
find out the correct address."
</quote>
This doesn't come from Mailman. It comes from the MTA.
Unless the MTA is actually checking list membership before
accepting posts, the poster sent the post to the wrong address.
<quote>
1- delete all users
2- change the Membership Management/Additional Member
tasks/Set everyones moderation from No to On
</quote>
Which does absolutely nothing at this point besause there
are no members to set to 'moderated'.
<quote>
3- Add all of the users
4- attempt a post from a user
> this produces the correct behavior, an email is sent
to the member stating "hey Im holding this until
approved" AND the moderator gets an email "do you want
to approve this".
</quote>
And how did steps 1 - 4 produce a moderated member?
<quote>
So the bug is that changing the users moderation flag
from off to on is NOT the same as subscribing a user
with the "Action to take when a moderated member posts
to the list" set on.
</quote>
I don't see how the above statement follows from your tests,
notwithstanding the fact that it is an apples/oranges type
of statement. I.e., the moderation flag and the action are
not an either/or situation. They are two independent
settings that work in concert.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1446859&group_…
Bugs item #1446859, was opened at 2006-03-10 00:45
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=1446859&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 (stable)
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Bill Saunders (ws28)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Posters set to Mod, incorrectly Rejected should be Held
Initial Comment:
Mailman 2.1.6(slightly hacked)
SunOS xxx 5.8
Sendmail
I've setup a group nis_mailman_test.
1- Privacy options/Sender filters/Action to take when a
moderated member posts to the list is set to Hold.
2- <same>/By default, should new list member postings
be moderated is set to No
3- I've added my members via a script that calls
add_members with the options "-w n -a n".
4- So after adding the members, all members can post.
5- Change this by going into Membership
Management/Additional Member tasks/Set everyones
moderation... set to On.
> To review, before step 5, the mod column for all
members "mod" was unchecked. (At that point anyone
could post without admin/moderator assistance.) After
step 5 the mod column for all members is checked.
6- Checking the Privacy options/Sender filters/Action
to take when a moderated member posts to the list we
find that it is set to Hold
7- Also checking I thought there was a "should I tell
the user that their email is being held?" and if I
remember correctly this is set to Yes.
> so at this point if a member sends a post they SHOULD
get an email saying "I've held your email until the
moderator approves it".
> unfortunately at this point the member gets an email
stating: "The e-mail account does not exist at the
organization this message was sent to. Check the
e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to
find out the correct address."
ok so lets try something different
1- delete all users
2- change the Membership Management/Additional Member
tasks/Set everyones moderation from No to On
3- Add all of the users
4- attempt a post from a user
> this produces the correct behavior, an email is sent
to the member stating "hey Im holding this until
approved" AND the moderator gets an email "do you want
to approve this".
So the bug is that changing the users moderation flag
from off to on is NOT the same as subscribing a user
with the "Action to take when a moderated member posts
to the list" set on.
Bill
bsaunder2002 somwhereat <what a cowboy yells, when he
sees a pretty cowgirl(unless it's like Brokeback
mountain but you get the gist)>.com
read that spammers!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1446859&group_…
Bugs item #1445630, was opened at 2006-03-08 05:06
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1445630&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 (stable)
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: chris-taylor (chris-taylor)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: /templates/de/verify.txt: encoding of special chars(umlaute)
Initial Comment:
In the last stable release of mailman-2.1.7 the
encoding of the special german characters (umlaute:
äöüÃÃÃ) in the file /templates/de/verify.txt is wrong.
When a confirm message is sent the recipient gets
strange characters for the german umlaute (e.g. ü
instead of ü).
I inserted the right characters in the file, now
everything seems fine. See attached file...
Regards Christian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-08 07:50
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
It looks like the /templates/de/verify.txt template we're
distributing is UTF-8 encoded. Is this the only one? I
looked at a couple of others and they appear to be
iso-8859-1 as they should be since that is Mailman's
character set for german language.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1445630&group_…
Bugs item #1445630, was opened at 2006-03-08 14:06
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=1445630&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 (stable)
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: chris-taylor (chris-taylor)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: /templates/de/verify.txt: encoding of special chars(umlaute)
Initial Comment:
In the last stable release of mailman-2.1.7 the
encoding of the special german characters (umlaute:
äöüÃÃÃ) in the file /templates/de/verify.txt is wrong.
When a confirm message is sent the recipient gets
strange characters for the german umlaute (e.g. ü
instead of ü).
I inserted the right characters in the file, now
everything seems fine. See attached file...
Regards Christian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1445630&group_…
Bugs item #1445366, was opened at 2006-03-07 20:45
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1445366&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: Closed
>Resolution: Invalid
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Juergen Heberling (sassa55)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Incorrect HTML generated on Info page
Initial Comment:
I run 2 lists on FreeBSD 4.11 Apache 1.3.26 using
Mailman 2.1.5 and Python 2.2.3_3.
Both lists are set up for admin_notify_mchanges=Yes
>From one list I can successfully submit a request to
subscribe via the list info page. From the second list
I can not - clicking the "subscribe" button does nothing.
A quick look at the html source for the info page for
each list shows that a < form > tag is missing for the
one that does not work. There are some other rendering
differences between the working and non-working version
of the info page.
You may try this yourself by visiting
http://mail.hicom.net/mailman/listinfo
and attempting to subscribe to either mailing lists.
TIA for your help
Juergen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-07 21:23
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
This is not a bug. Someone has edited the listinfo.html
template for the 'Thekootzlist' list so there is now a list
specific, edited template at
lists/thekootzlist/en/listinfo.html. In the process of
editing, the tag <MM-Subscribe-Form-Start> was removed from
the edited template, thus breaking the subscribe form. This
is easy to do because the tag comes much earlier in the HTML
than it is needed.
Follow the admin links 'Edit the public HTML pages' and
'General list information page' for the two lists and
compare the HTML and replace the <MM-Subscribe-Form-Start>
tag in the broken HTML.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1445366&group_…
Bugs item #1445366, was opened at 2006-03-08 04:45
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=1445366&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: Juergen Heberling (sassa55)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Incorrect HTML generated on Info page
Initial Comment:
I run 2 lists on FreeBSD 4.11 Apache 1.3.26 using
Mailman 2.1.5 and Python 2.2.3_3.
Both lists are set up for admin_notify_mchanges=Yes
>From one list I can successfully submit a request to
subscribe via the list info page. From the second list
I can not - clicking the "subscribe" button does nothing.
A quick look at the html source for the info page for
each list shows that a < form > tag is missing for the
one that does not work. There are some other rendering
differences between the working and non-working version
of the info page.
You may try this yourself by visiting
http://mail.hicom.net/mailman/listinfo
and attempting to subscribe to either mailing lists.
TIA for your help
Juergen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1445366&group_…
Bugs item #1442801, was opened at 2006-03-03 18:42
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by grandcross
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1442801&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 (stable)
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: David Carter (grandcross)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: ToDigest failing with missing attribute error
Initial Comment:
One of my list queues has stopped sending messages due
to a missing method:
Mar 03 18:11:02 2006 (16865) Uncaught runner exception:
'str' object has no attribute 'get'
Mar 03 18:11:02 2006 (16865) Traceback (most recent
call last):
File "/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Queue/Runner.py", line
110, in _oneloop
self._onefile(msg, msgdata)
File "/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Queue/Runner.py", line
160, in _onefile
keepqueued = self._dispose(mlist, msg, msgdata)
File
"/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Queue/IncomingRunner.py",
line 130, in _dispose
more = self._dopipeline(mlist, msg, msgdata, pipeline)
File
"/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Queue/IncomingRunner.py",
line 153, in _dopipeline
sys.modules[modname].process(mlist, msg, msgdata)
File "/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py",
line 91, in process
send_digests(mlist, mboxfp)
File "/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py",
line 132, in send_digests
send_i18n_digests(mlist, mboxfp)
File "/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py",
line 217, in send_i18n_digests
msgsubj = msg.get('subject', _('(no subject)'))
AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'get'
Mar 03 18:11:02 2006 (16865) SHUNTING:
1141426524.2579081+81281f03f202e0386d5044adcef5083568986f9a
Digest mailbox has now gotten very large (> 4MB) so I
cant attach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: David Carter (grandcross)
Date: 2006-03-07 14:44
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=110987
This fixed the issue. Thanks! I'll upgrade to the later
version ASAP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-07 12:40
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
Absent any response to the contrary, I'm closing this per my
previous comment - fixed in 2.1.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-03 19:09
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
This looks like Mailman 2.1.5 or earlier. This problem was
fixed in 2.1.6. At line 210 in your
Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py you will see
while msg is not None:
if msg == '':
# It was an unparseable message
msg = mbox.next()
msgcount += 1
You need to add a continue so this becomes
while msg is not None:
if msg == '':
# It was an unparseable message
msg = mbox.next()
continue
msgcount += 1
In the mean time, if you don't mind having your digest out
of sequence, just move the digest.mbox aside. Then you can
patch ToDigest.py and straighten out the digest situation.
Note that you probably don't want to both run bin/unshunt
and replace the digest.mbox as that will result in
duplicates, but if messages haven't reached the list, you
need to run bin/unshunt to finish processing them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1442801&group_…