Feature Requests item #669056, was opened at 2003-01-16 11:12
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by oliversl
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: Oliver Schulze (oliversl)
Date: 2006-03-04 12:04
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=70599
DO you mean a header like X-List-*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bryan Fullerton (fehwalker)
Date: 2005-08-23 11:24
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 10:39
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…
Feature Requests item #1443069, was opened at 2006-03-04 11:55
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=1443069&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: Oliver Schulze (oliversl)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: If an email is filtered with a SPAM filter, do not reply
Initial Comment:
If an email is marked as SPAM using the "SPAM Filter"
in mailman:
- do not reply to the sender
- do not send the body of the email to the owner of the
list
Maybe related to: Request #1219887
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1219887&group_id=1…
Thanks
Oliver
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=1443069&group_…
Bugs item #1421285, was opened at 2006-02-01 04:24
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bwarsaw
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: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw)
Date: 2006-03-04 09:41
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 04:54
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 02:37
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 #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: 2006-03-04 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_…
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: 2006-03-03 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 #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: Open
Resolution: None
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: 2006-03-03 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_…
Bugs item #1442801, was opened at 2006-03-03 18:42
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=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: Open
Resolution: None
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1442801&group_…
Bugs item #1442639, was opened at 2006-03-03 10:27
Message generated for change (Comment added) 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: Open
Resolution: None
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: 2006-03-03 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_…
Bugs item #1442639, was opened at 2006-03-03 13:27
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=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: Open
Resolution: None
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1442639&group_…
Feature Requests item #1422113, was opened at 2006-02-01 19:00
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by msapiro
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=1422113&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: Closed
>Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Bryan Fullerton (fehwalker)
>Assigned to: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Summary: Admin notification on address change
Initial Comment:
Currently when a user changes their address on the
options page there is no notification email sent to the
list owner or moderators of affected lists. It would be
more consistent to have this function generate email
according to the admin_notify_mchanges list setting,
though perhaps the content of the email should be
different to distinguish between the two actions.
Thanks,
Bryan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro)
Date: 2006-03-02 16:54
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1123998
I have implemented this and committed it to the CVS trunk
for Mailman 2.2. It affects MailList.py and a new
adminaddrchgack.txt template in case you want to get it from
CVS. The change unconditionally logs the address change to
the 'subscribe' log and sends the admin notice based on
admin_notify_mchanges.
It won't be in Mailman 2.1.8 because of i18n considerations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350103&aid=1422113&group_…