Mailman-coders March 2006

mailman-coders@python.org

1 participants
83 discussions

[ mailman-Bugs-1433666 ] News to mail gateway: Outlook Express broke uuenc.attachment
by SourceForge.net 07 Mar '06

07 Mar '06

Bugs item #1433666, was opened at 2006-02-17 08:02 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1433666&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: nntp/news Group: 2.1 (stable) >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Submitted By: Dâniel Fraga (danielfraga) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: News to mail gateway: Outlook Express broke uuenc.attachment Initial Comment: When someone posts on my nntp server a message with an uuencoded attachment using Outlook Express, the message appears broken in mailman. For example: Original message: news://news.abusar.org/drq50u$gmp$2@servicos.netuno.com.br Mailman message (corrupted): http://core.abusar.org/pipermail/u-br.lazer.humor/2006-February/000346.html… I think the problem is related to how mailman handles the end of lines... Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-03-07 09:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 Absent any reply to my previous comment, I'm closing this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-02-17 17:22 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 Are you talking only of archived messages or individual received messages as well? In the case of the archived message you point to, the problem is that you have configured the archiver to obscure email addresses so that every '@' character in the uuencoded data is rewritten as ' em '. The issue is compounded by Outlook Express, because when Outlook Express sends a uuencoded attachment, it does not actually encapsulate the uuencoded attachment in a separate MIME part. If it did, Scrubber would store it separately and put a link to it in the archived message, but in the Outlook Express case, the 'attachment' is not an attachment at all, but rather just a uuencoded file in the body of the message. Thus, it is just more text subject to munging by email address obscuring. I was going to close this report with the above explanation, but I am waiting to hear if you also have a problem with individual messages or digests. I know my explanation is correct for the archives because I took the uuencoded data from your archive page and replaced all the ' em ' with '@', and I was then able to uudecode the file into a valid jpeg. So, do you have a problem with messages or digests from the list, and if so, can you provide an example message for analysis? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1433666&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1442639 ] attachments archived even when archiving disabled
by SourceForge.net 07 Mar '06

07 Mar '06

Bugs item #1442639, was opened at 2006-03-03 10:27 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by msapiro You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1442639&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: 2.1 (stable) >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Submitted By: R. Scott Bailey (rscottbailey) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: attachments archived even when archiving disabled Initial Comment: I just noticed disappearing disk space under /var on my Debian system running mailman 2.1.7... :-) Investigation reveals lots of space tied up under /var/lib/mailman/archives/private/<list>/attachm ents/<yyyymmdd>/<blah> -- it appears that any message containing an attachment causes the attachment to be stashed here in the archive tree, even when archiving is disabled (and nothing else in the archives tree is getting updated). I do not believe it is correct behavior for attachments to be saved in these circumstances. Thanks, Scott Bailey scott.bailey(a)eds.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-03-07 09:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 Closing per my previous comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-03-03 10:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 This is expected behavior. The scrubber saves attachments in the archives/private/<listname>/attachments/ directory. This happens for all messages if scrub_nondigest is Yes, and for all plain digests in any case even if the list does not do archiving. If you allow attachments at all, the only way to avoid this is to set both scrub_nondigest and digestable to No. I.e, don't scrub individual messages and don't allow digests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1442639&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1442801 ] ToDigest failing with missing attribute error
by SourceForge.net 07 Mar '06

07 Mar '06

Bugs item #1442801, was opened at 2006-03-03 15:42 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro 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: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-03-07 09:40 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 16:09 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_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1421285 ] 2.1.7 (VERP) mistakes delay notice for bounce
by SourceForge.net 07 Mar '06

07 Mar '06

Bugs item #1421285, was opened at 2006-02-01 01:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) 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: 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> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1421285 ] 2.1.7 (VERP) mistakes delay notice for bounce
by SourceForge.net 07 Mar '06

07 Mar '06

Bugs item #1421285, was opened at 2006-02-01 10:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by m-a 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> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Matthias Andree (m-a) Date: 2006-03-07 15:32 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 09:19 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 15:41 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 10:54 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: 2006-03-04 08:37 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_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1421285 ] 2.1.7 (VERP) mistakes delay notice for bounce
by SourceForge.net 07 Mar '06

07 Mar '06

Bugs item #1421285, was opened at 2006-02-01 10:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by m-a 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> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Matthias Andree (m-a) Date: 2006-03-07 09:19 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 15:41 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 10:54 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: 2006-03-04 08:37 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_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-863989 ] Postfix delayed notification not recognized.
by SourceForge.net 06 Mar '06

06 Mar '06

Bugs item #863989, was opened at 2003-12-21 07:49 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=863989&group_i… 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: Postfix delayed notification not recognized. Initial Comment: Hi, I am running Mailman 2.1.3 (stable) with Postfix 2.0.16-20031022. It seems to be running fine with the VERP patch (it is comfortably surprising to see how much Mailman has matured since the unusable 1.1 version - I hated 1.1 but I do like 2.1! You've done wonderful work.) However I have one problem that I cannot resolve myself: Mailman apparently does not parse Postfix' delayed notification which is apparently RFC-1894 conformant (Postfix hasn't been updated to RFC-3464 yet). On superficial inspection, it looks as though Mailman's Bouncers/DSN.py should handle it and return "Stop", as but I'm getting this "uncaught bounce" message which I interpret as "haven't figured anything reasonable from this bounce". The unintelligible bounce is attached and has had mail addresses changed (sed) and the delayed mail header removed for privacy reasons. I can provide the full message to a developer on request, but I cat not put it into a public bug tracker. The MIME structure of Postfix' delay notification is: 1 multipart/report 1.1 text/plain 1.2 message/delivery-status 1.3 text/rfc822-headers The message/delivery-status part has "Action: delayed" in the 2nd header block. See for yourself. Am I misunderstanding Mailman or is Mailman misunderstanding Postfix? Thanks in advance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-03-06 15:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 m-a's comments from 2003-12-28 are correct. The 'Stop' signal was not being passed from BouncerAPI to the BounceRunner. This has been fixed in CVS and will be correct in Mailman 2.1.8. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthias Andree (m-a) Date: 2003-12-28 19:40 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2788 Urgh. Did I say I have these narrow edit forms and line breaking behind my back without preview? Please apologize the awful formatting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthias Andree (m-a) Date: 2003-12-28 19:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2788 Hum, looks like this issue isn't Postfix specific, but affects all systems that send a delay notification. "logs/bounce" contains: Dec 27 20:35:45 2003 (2053) bounce message w/no discernable addresses: <mumble> Dec 27 20:35:45 2003 (2053) forwarding unrecognized, message-id: <mumble> If I save exactly this mail (I checked the Message-ID) and feed it to onebounce.py, I'm getting "DSN got Stop", so that part is fine. I've dug a bit deeper, and noticed a difference between onebounce.py and BouncerAPI.ScanMessages. See lines 65ff in BouncerAPI.py: addrs = sys.modules[modname].process(msg) if addrs is Stop: # One of the detectors recognized the bounce, but there were no # addresses to extract. Return the empty list. return [] I wonder if ScanMessages() is doing the right thing, mapping Stop to []. Evidently, the BounceRunner assumes [] is a parse failure (no addresses returned) and ultimately forwards the "delay notification" to the admin contrary to original DSN.py "Stop" intent. To me, it seems as though ScanMessages needed a fix that allows it to propagate both states, "bounce recognized, no addresses" and "bounce unrecognized", back to its caller. I wonder if the "Stop" condition should be exposed to the BounceRunner or some other interface extension in ScanMessages. What do you think? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2003-12-26 22:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Hmm, I get Stop when I run this message through the DSN.py bounce processor, so as near as I can tell, this is working properly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=863989&group_i…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1444447 ] show_qfiles: 'str' object has no attribute 'as_string'
by SourceForge.net 06 Mar '06

06 Mar '06

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: Open Resolution: None 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: 2006-03-06 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_…

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-1444447 ] show_qfiles: 'str' object has no attribute 'as_string'
by SourceForge.net 06 Mar '06

06 Mar '06

Bugs item #1444447, was opened at 2006-03-06 22:43 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=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: Open Resolution: None 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()) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1444447&group_…

1 0

[ mailman-Feature Requests-669056 ] Archive URL in Email
by SourceForge.net 04 Mar '06

04 Mar '06

Feature Requests item #669056, was opened at 2003-01-16 14:12 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by decibel You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=669056&group_i… 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: Grant Bowman (grantbow) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Archive URL in Email Initial Comment: When an email goes out, it should have the assigned URL in the header. This requires you to know what it is as you send it out which can be tricky. I don't know if Mailman is designed to handle such a feature. I hope it is! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jim C. Nasby (decibel) Date: 2006-03-04 15:53 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=457856 A header would certainly suffice. If you wanted to be really slick I guess you could allow people to add it to the footer sent with every email, though I'd never use that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Oliver Schulze (oliversl) Date: 2006-03-04 15:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=70599 DO you mean a header like X-List-* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Bryan Fullerton (fehwalker) Date: 2005-08-23 15:24 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=660772 Some sort of unique identifier (a hash, or some other permanent ID tag inserted as a header in the .mbox file) for each message would be very useful if the archive is later modified and rebuilt. Currently if a message is removed or added and the archive rebuilt, search engines must reindex the entire archive to get the updated URL for each message based on the new sequence numbers. For large archives this is non-trivial. +1 for a unique and permanent URL per message, +0 for having the message URL included in the message/headers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jim C. Nasby (decibel) Date: 2005-08-23 14:39 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=457856 I agree this would be extremely handy. I'd post the URL to a thread about it on mailman-users, but I'm too lazy to find it in the archive. Of course if there was a URL in the emails... FWIW, Brad Knowles posted that right now this isn't possible to do because the archives use a sequence number. If instead they used a hash of the email, then doing this would be easy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=669056&group_i…

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Mailman-coders March 2006