? This very message came to me with the following header:
Errors-To: mailman-developers-admin(a)python.org
All my bounces come to the list admin address, set in
the admin webpage, in the second field of General Options.
Do you have that set to something, and bounces still come to root?
> 2. Bounces are sent to the poor postmaster instead of a -admin address.
> I'm not entirely certain, but I think an Errors-To: header or something
> like that in all Mailman messages might allow one to distribute that load
> somewhat.
Barry,
In 2.1 when used with external subscriber storage (eg SQL), will the
new equivalent of qrunner request and load the entire subscriber DB
onto the heap prior to broadcast?
<<Yeah, I'm cheating and being lazy on not checking the source
myself>>
Reason: This poses scaling problems for lists with very large
numbers of subscribers. I'd suggest paging thru the set in blocks.
ObExcuse: Chap on -users asking about millions of subscribers.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(a)kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
Add a --with-fqdn and --with-url or equivalent. The current cvs snapshot
can't guess my fqdn on my production box, and it's used now to build a web of
interconnected addresses, as well as populate the VIRTUAL_HOSTS table,
so I had to do a bunch of deleting and repairing in mm_cfg. I can, if I *remember*,
which I've already forgotten once, fix it when I build by setting FQDN and URL
environment variables, so that configure picks those up by default, but I have a habit
of just looking at config.status to see how I ran configure the last time. Having an
explicit configure switch would be nice.
Interesting article on slashdot:
<http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/17/2031249>
Basically, DSLreports did a test, and found that e-mail addresses posted on
a web site could start seeing spam in as little as 8 hours.
I mention it for two reasons. One, since mail lists manage e-mail addresses
(and archives of e-mail addresses), it is yet antother indication of just
why we have to be careful about presenting and disclosing that stuff. And
second, since one of the addresses presented and disclosed is that of the
admin, we really need to come up with ways that allow newbies to contact an
admin without easily disclosing addresses to spammers. And, unfortunately,
the security problems with formmail.pl have shown THAT isn't really the
answer...
Chuq
--
Chuq Von Rospach (chuqui(a)plaidworks.com -- http://www.chuqui.com/)
Will Geek for hardware.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
It took all of my sunday, but I just finished porting Ben Gertzfield's
excellent dupe removal patch to mailman cvs
(I also had to learn some python in the process. I'm starting to believe
that Mailman is a conspiracy to get people to learn python :-p)
In a nutshell, the patch does two things:
1) it does not send you your list copy if
- your subscribed Email address is already in the headers
- you already received the message through another list (Cc accross two
lists or more on the same site)
2) The new "nodupes" setting is really something you probably want as a
default on all lists. I also had lists were people wanted notmetoo as a
default too.
Ben's fix for that is to have a bitfield per list that you can set and
that states which options newly added users get.
As Ben said, this breaks the one patch one functionality rule, but when I
ported his work to mailman-cvs, I realized that it didn't make sense to take
them apart.
However, Barry, if that would stop you from merging #1 in CVS, I could
remove it, but I'm not sure why one would want to.
I've done reasonable tests to make sure I didn't break all of mailman in the
process, and the core logic hasn't changed, so the basic functionality is
the same that Ben had written and that has been used for 6-9mo? on the
debian lists now.
In other words, it should work (it does for me, and I'm already running it
on my production mailman-cvs list server), but there is always the chance
that there might be a corner case buglet left somewhere.
Considering this was a pain to port, and how this puts to rest many of the
reply-to munging discussions (the only real argument for reply-to munging is
that it "solves" the duplicate mails you other receive when people use reply
to all), I'm hoping that this could make it in (wink, wink :-D)
Thanks,
Marc
--
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger marc_f(a)merlins.org for PGP key
I have a small problem with a moderated list as part of my upgrades from
2.0.8 to 2.1b1.
This is a "joke of the day" style list. I'm supposed to be the only one
who can submit messages to the list; all of the members are moderated
(except me). Outgoing messages are stored in a queue, and one is sent
automatically by cron once per day.
With 2.0.8, I was processing a message by adding a Sender: tag with my
address; my address was listed in the 'posters' variable. With
"USE_ENVELOPE_SENDER = 1" in my mm_cfg.py, this worked.
The list upgrade process handled the 'posters' variable correctly; my
list address was marked *unmoderated*, and the other addresses were
copied into the new 'accept_these_nonmembers' field. (Good attention to
detail, there, btw; kudos!)
However, my 'trick' of adding a Sender: field doesn't work anymore, and
I get a confusing log/hold message that says "humour post from
chk(a)cfrq.net held: Post by a moderated member". 'chk(a)cfrq.net' is not
moderated.
It turns out that, in order to find the moderation flag of the user that
send a message, Handlers/Moderate.py calls msg.get_senders, which
returns a *list* of senders with the Sender: last; Moderate.py only
looks at the first return value, which is the From: header. The address
in the From: field *is* moderated, and so the message is rejected.
Later, however, Handlers/Hold.py routine hold_for_approval calls the old
msg.get_sender (singular vs. plural), which returns the Sender: field
if "USE_ENVELOPE_SENDER = 1" is set, which is why I get the confusing
log message.
So, two things:
1) The message rejection is confusing.
2) What's the right way to do this under 2.1?
Thanks,
--
Harald Koch <chk(a)pobox.com>
"It takes a child to raze a village."
-Michael T. Fry
Apr 10 03:19:57 2002 (12285) message is unparsable: 1018423196.419311+a81685d7af
1f6631ce6392a83aff01fde476543f
Apr 10 03:19:57 2002 (12285) lost data files for filebase: 1018423196.419311+a81
685d7af1f6631ce6392a83aff01fde476543f
I don't mind the unparseability so much as the fact that it lost the
files, so now I can't see *why* it was unparseable...
Based on the syslog, I see which one it must have been. Looks like it was
spam anyway, so hopefully it was just their spamming package mangling
the message.
Hi all,
if you send a "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" command via email to
list-request@mailmanhost you get a confirmation message in reply which
says "To confirm that you want to be removed from this mailing list,
simply reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact.".
If you do so, but include the body of the confirm message, you get
TWO messages back: a success message and a long error message stating
"There were problems with the email commands you sent".
I find this confusing and think you cannot expect everyone to understand
"reply" as "reply with an empty body". I would therefore propose the
following behaviour change:
After a confirm command from the Subject: header field of a message is
processed successfully, the body of this message is ignored (not
processed).
--
--
Georg Koch (koch(a)cochrane.de) | Phone: +49 761 203 6710
German Cochrane Centre | Fax: +49 761 203 6712
Mail: Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics
Stefan-Meier-Strasse 26, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then
success is sure." (Mark Twain)
Any ballpark estimates on the number of Mailman subscribers
globally? Given that the FAQ mentions a list with 147,000 users, it seems
safe to say that there are millions of Mailman users. What do you think?
I'd like a number for a grant report I'm writing.
Ellen
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:55:01AM -0400, Tom Neff wrote:
> "Billie R. McNamara" <billie(a)tnhillbillie.net> wrote:
> >We are using version 2.0.8 for a moderated list. But, we aren't able to
> >edit messages before approving them (for example, to delete just one
> >inappropriate word).
> >
> >How can we do this?
>
> There is a FAQ entry that wants you to hand edit various spool files, but
> you can patch 2.0.8 to allow message editing.
I think the patch will be necessary for mailman 2.1, it unfortunately stores
the message on disk in a database format, making hand editing on the mm
server not that easy.
Marc
--
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger marc_f(a)merlins.org for PGP key
