Mailman 3 May 2002 - Mailman-Developers

Re: [Mailman-Developers] aliases and virtuser-support for sendmail
by Dan Mick May 31, 2002

May 31, 2002

> I have no idea of python-coding, but I thought for some experienced person > here it should be no problem to add the feature to mailman that it writes > also to sendmails' aliases and virtuser-files when setting up a mailing > list. See README.SENDMAIL and the contrib/ files it refers to. (This is in MM 2.1, of course). I don't use it, but I'm sure David does, and I'm sure it works.

1 0

aliases and virtuser-support for sendmail
by frank May 31, 2002

May 31, 2002

Hello, I have no idea of python-coding, but I thought for some experienced person here it should be no problem to add the feature to mailman that it writes also to sendmails' aliases and virtuser-files when setting up a mailing list. I installed mailman version 2.1b2+ and loved this very much because of it's language features. Btw.: I also translated almost completely the German language version (as this was done only half way) and corrected there a lot of bugs. So if somebody wants to have the file - pls. mail me. The only thing to work with mailman would be now that it can write to those files - so that it needs no manual intervention when setting up a mailing list. I would appreciate very much if somebody could help me! Thanks in advance... Frank

1 0

Adding to the FAQ & other documentation
by Terri Oda May 30, 2002

May 30, 2002

I'm starting to merge in a bunch of old archives to linuxchix's current archives (under 2.0.10), and I ran in to a problem. Searching the mailing lists let me know that I wasn't the only one with the problem, but didn't give me the answer. Here's a good description of the problem from a nice guy who sadly had to tell me he hadn't found the answer either, but there were a decent number of similar stories on the mailing list: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2002-May/019594.html In my case, it was just refusing to build with the old archives inserted, so I was just keeping the same HTML pages even though the mbox file had been changed. So, recalling that From lines could be a problem, I started going through the big archive file and discovered that right near the beginning, there's a message with two From lines. I remove one, and voila! the entire thing rebuilds. I'm happy now, but in the interest of saving other people some effort and hairpulling... could a few lines about this be added to the FAQ (http://list.org/faq.html, I'd guess) and wherever else it's appropriate? I'd be quite happy to do this myself if someone can tell me how and what I need to do to get access. :) Here's the quickly-written version: --- Q: How do I rebuild the HTML pages for the archives? A: Run <prefix>/bin/arch <listname> to rebuild the HTML. If it says "Pickling archive state into <prefix>/archives/private/<listname>/pipermail.pck" but doesn't make any changes, (see http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2002-May/019594.html for a longer description of the problem) you may have a slightly corrupted mbox file which can't be read correctly by the archive generator. Take a look at the mbox file (Typically: <prefix>/archives/private/<listname>.mbox/<listname>.mbox) and make sure that each message is separated by one blank line and begins with one and only one line of the form From <email> <date>. --- On the subject of documentation... Mary set this up so that it automatically subs in the appropriate list name to our FAQ. http://www.linuxchix.org/content/docs/faqs/technical.html?listname=grrltalk Has anyone ever thought about having a help page like this set up as part of mailman? I know it'd be nice to believe that the pages are clear enough as is, but I know sometimes a longer explanation can help people out. Terri

1 0

[ mailman-Bugs-553128 ] cant use alternate port
by noreply＠sourceforge.net May 30, 2002

May 30, 2002

Bugs item #553128, was opened at 2002-05-06 22:48 You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=553128&group_id… Category: Web/CGI Group: 2.1 beta >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid >Priority: 1 Submitted By: Christopher Donald Wiegand (cdwiegand) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: cant use alternate port Initial Comment: I have to use port 81 for my webserver (due to a NAT issue on the firewall, as port 80 is already in use). I have adjusted DEFAULT_URL_HOST, and have also tried adjusting DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN, and in most places this works, however, when a list has it's archive made private, it does not include the :81 I appended to the variable... This *appears* to be a bug with Mailman 2.1b1. Also affects the submit button when you reject/ignore/approve moderated items from the list admin menu. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Christopher Donald Wiegand (cdwiegand) Date: 2002-05-30 09:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=9059 Never mind - I adjusted apache, and it's working fine now :). I guess this was a feature of the virtual hosts. Too bad you can't turn that off... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=553128&group_id…

1 0

(2.0.11 patch) explicit references to mailman-owner instead of MAILMAN_OWNER
by jpmg＠eng.cam.ac.uk May 30, 2002

May 30, 2002

There are a few places where mailman-2.0.11 makes explicit reference to 'mailman-owner' + mlist.host_name where I believe it should use the MAILMAN_OWNER variable (else why bother pretending that the latter is usefully administrator-configurable?). [ I've ignored the one in scripts/answer_majordomo_mail as I don't believe that script can run anyway (does the Utils.SendTextToUser function exist?) ] *** bin/newlist.orig Sat Mar 3 05:58:19 2001 --- bin/newlist Thu May 30 11:23:42 2002 *************** *** 204,214 **** 'admin_url' : mlist.GetScriptURL('admin', absolute=1), 'listinfo_url': mlist.GetScriptURL('listinfo', absolute=1), 'requestaddr' : "%s-request@%s" % (listname, mlist.host_name), ! 'hostname' : mlist.host_name, }) msg = Message.UserNotification( owner_mail, ! 'mailman-owner@' + mlist.host_name, 'Your new mailing list: ' + listname, text) HandlerAPI.DeliverToUser(mlist, msg) --- 204,214 ---- 'admin_url' : mlist.GetScriptURL('admin', absolute=1), 'listinfo_url': mlist.GetScriptURL('listinfo', absolute=1), 'requestaddr' : "%s-request@%s" % (listname, mlist.host_name), ! 'mailman-owner' : mm_cfg.MAILMAN_OWNER, }) msg = Message.UserNotification( owner_mail, ! mm_cfg.MAILMAN_OWNER, 'Your new mailing list: ' + listname, text) HandlerAPI.DeliverToUser(mlist, msg) *** templates/newlist.txt.orig Fri Jun 19 20:37:07 1998 --- templates/newlist.txt Thu May 30 11:23:50 2002 *************** *** 32,35 **** your admin password. You can also use your password to change member's options, including digestification, delivery disabling, etc. ! Please address all questions to mailman-owner@%(hostname)s. --- 32,35 ---- your admin password. You can also use your password to change member's options, including digestification, delivery disabling, etc. ! Please address all questions to %(mailman-owner)s. ------------------------ On a separate note, I _think_ that the email address "mailman@site" is only ever used in one place, namely Mailman/MailCommandHandler.py , where it's purpose doesn't seem noticeably distinct from the MAILMAN_OWNER account. Is there any good reason not to do the following patch, and simplify the installation of mailman such that the only non-list-related alias that it requires is the one specified by MAILMAN_OWNER in the mm_cfg.py file? *** Mailman/MailCommandHandler.py.orig Tue Aug 1 23:03:23 2000 --- Mailman/MailCommandHandler.py Thu May 30 11:27:52 2002 *************** *** 406,413 **** return lists = Utils.list_names() lists.sort() ! self.AddToResponse("\nPublic mailing lists run by mailman@%s" ! % self.host_name, trunc=0) for listname in lists: if listname == self._internal_name: listob = self --- 406,413 ---- return lists = Utils.list_names() lists.sort() ! self.AddToResponse("\nPublic mailing lists run by %s" ! % mm_cfg.MAILMAN_OWNER, trunc=0) for listname in lists: if listname == self._internal_name: listob = self ------------------------- -patrick.

1 0

[ mailman-Patches-562061 ] Poor grammar: templates/subscribeack.txt
by noreply＠sourceforge.net May 29, 2002

May 29, 2002

Patches item #562061, was opened at 2002-05-29 21:15 You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=562061&group_id… Category: None Group: Mailman 2.0.x Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Dominic Hargreaves (therealdom) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Poor grammar: templates/subscribeack.txt Initial Comment: This file contains the phrase: "You may also have your password mailed to you automatically off of the Web page noted above." This is incorrect, and should read: "You may also have your password mailed to you automatically from the Web page noted above." The attached trivial patch fixes this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=562061&group_id…

1 0

(2.0.11) Mailman/Cgi/admindb.py should notice CGIEXT
by jpmg＠eng.cam.ac.uk May 29, 2002

May 29, 2002

*** admindb.py.dist Mon Apr 1 19:47:46 2002 --- admindb.py Wed May 29 11:16:39 2002 *************** *** 43,49 **** link = mm_cfg.DEFAULT_URL if link[-1] <> '/': link = link + '/' ! link = link + 'admin' doc.AddItem(Link(link, 'list of available mailing lists.')) print doc.Format(bgcolor="#ffffff") --- 43,49 ---- link = mm_cfg.DEFAULT_URL if link[-1] <> '/': link = link + '/' ! link = link + Utils.ScriptURL('admin') doc.AddItem(Link(link, 'list of available mailing lists.')) print doc.Format(bgcolor="#ffffff")

1 0

Cleaning the archive by a list-owner
by Danny Terweij May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

Hi, How can a list-owner clean out the archive? Delete messages? When not, can the developers program it? It would be nice. Groetjes Danny Terweij

2 2

[ mailman-Bugs-558988 ] bad performance for big queue dirs
by noreply＠sourceforge.net May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

Bugs item #558988, was opened at 2002-05-21 23:15 You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=558988&group_id… Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Norbert Bollow (bollow) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: bad performance for big queue dirs Initial Comment: Many filesystems (e.g. the popular ext2) have horrible performance when there are many files in the same directory. The queue system should be modified to avoid this situation. As a test case, try adding 20,000 test address in such a way that Mailman will try to send a welcome message to each of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Barry Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2002-05-22 22:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 I think you have a valid complaint, but I'm loathe to change something so fundamental this late in the game. I'll leave this bug report open because if we can recommend some other, more big queue friendly filesystem (reiserfs? I don't know) then we should document this. Don't MTAs have the same problem? Do they all implement multiple subdirectories for queued messages? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=558988&group_id…

7 8

[ mailman-Bugs-558633 ] Blocked queue after fight with Majordomo
by noreply＠sourceforge.net May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

Bugs item #558633, was opened at 2002-05-21 08:01 You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=558633&group_id… Category: mail delivery Group: 2.0.x >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nigel Metheringham (nigel) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Blocked queue after fight with Majordomo Initial Comment: On Mailman 2.0.8 (was honestly going to upgrade today!). It appears that a couple of messages were boucing between the mailman request addresses and a Majordomo server, with more error transcript being added to the message on each bounce. This then appeared to completely block the qrunner. Removing the 2 huge messages from the qfiles directory fixed it. Broken message qfiles attached. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2002-05-27 22:17 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 I have implemented something like what Norbert suggested for MM2.1b3. I won't fix this for MM2.0.x. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Donal Hunt (redgiant) Date: 2002-05-22 11:40 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=551025 It actually gets worse! I finally figured out what has been crashing my machine for the past few days... and it's related to this bug i think. To reproduce: Create a moderated mailing list. eg test(a)hostanme.com Send a mail from your mailman user (eg su to mailman id and type: echo "test" | mail -s "test" test(a)hostname.com (where test(a)hostname.com is your moderated mailing list)) The mail gets sent to the mailing list and held for approval (mailman(a)hostname.com isn't a subscriber). A message gets sent back to mailman(a)hostname.com saying the message is held for approval (which mailman tries to post to the mailman list). At this stage stuff starts to stop working on the machine (smtp, telnet and syslogd mainly). What I've got from stracing syslogd (I originally thought it was a syslogd problem) and a mail from root are below: The thing is not that mailman is going to be sending mails to lists locally, but more someone could spoof a mail and DOS your machine. not nice!!! From what I've seen (evidence below) - there isn't a fight between the two lists 0 but i may be wrong. Quick fix: set "respond_to_post_requests" to No. System info: Suse Linux 7.0, Syslogd 1.3-3, Mailman 2.1b (cvs - may 9th) If this has been fixed already or is a seperate bug I apologise in advance for the long comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <mailman(a)hostname.dcu.ie>: Command died with status 1: "/usr/local/mailman/mail/wrapper post mailman" Reporting-MTA: dns; hostname.dcu.ie Arrival-Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:02:45 +0100 (IST) Final-Recipient: rfc822; mailman(a)hostname.dcu.ie Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; Command died with status 1: "/usr/local/mailman/mail/wrapper post mailman" Received: from hostname.dcu.ie (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hostname.dcu.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB02D5DFEA for <mailman(a)hostname.dcu.ie>; Wed, 22 May 2002 16:02:45 +0100 (IST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Your message to Test2 awaits moderator approval From: test2-bounces(a)hostname.dcu.ie To: mailman(a)hostname.dcu.ie Message-ID: <mailman.16.1022079764.11428.test2(a)hostname.dcu.ie> Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:02:44 +0100 X-BeenThere: test2(a)hostname.dcu.ie X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b2+ Precedence: bulk List-Id: <test2.hostname.dcu.ie> X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: test2-bounces(a)hostname.dcu.ie Errors-To: test2-bounces(a)hostname.dcu.ie ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- writev(1, [{"May 22 02:36:40", 15}, {" ", 1}, {"hostname", 7}, {" ", 1}, {"local[6728]: fatal: execvp /usr/"..., 85}, {"\r\n", 2}], 6) = ?ERESTARTSYS (To be restarted) --- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) --- time(NULL) = 1022032087 rt_sigaction(SIGALRM, {0x405304, [], SA_RESTART}, {0x405304, [], SA_RESTART}, 8) = 0 alarm(30) = 0 sigreturn() = ? (mask now []) writev(1, [{"May 22 02:36:40", 15}, {" ", 1}, {"hostname", 7}, {" ", 1},{"local[6728]: fatal: execvp /usr/"..., 85}, {"\r\n", 2}], 6) = ?ERESTARTSYS (To be restarted) --- SIGALRM (Alarm clock) --- time(NULL) = 1022032117 rt_sigaction(SIGALRM, {0x405304, [], SA_RESTART}, {0x405304, [],SA_RESTART}, 8) = 0 alarm(30) = 0 sigreturn() = ? (mask now []) writev(1, [{"May 22 02:36:40", 15}, {" ", 1}, {"linux28", 7}, {" ", 1}, {"local[6728]: fatal: execvp /usr/"..., 85}, {"\r\n", 2}], 6 <unfinished ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2002-05-21 22:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Norbert Bollow gives this very good idea: Rate limiting can do a lot to prevent things from getting out of hand. For example, respond at most ten times to essentially the same request from the same email address. On any given day, when Mailman gets the tenth message from the same email address without valid commands, it could reply "This is the tenth message of this type today from you. It order to avoid problems like mail loops between email robots, any further messages of this type will be ignored today. Please try again tomorrow." And then any further messages from that address with no valid commands will be just discarded. Similarly, Mailman would reply only to ten subscription requests for the same list from the same user on any given day. And only to ten unsubscription requests for the same list from the same user on any given day. And only to ten requests to change the subscription options in the same way. Etc. Since most loops (with the exception of some bounce loops) iterate more quickly than ten times per day, this will kill most loops between robots before they create serious problems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2002-05-21 16:47 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Heh, I think this is a general problem when you get two email robots talking to each other! In MM2.1cvs the robot will refuse to respond to a message marked Precedence: bulk|junk|list -- but it looks like that wouldn't have even helped in this case (since the Majordomo server isnt' setting that header ;/ ) The only other solution I can think of is to add a config variable which is a blacklist of known addresses (regexps) that Mailman should not respond too. You'd still get into the robot infloop the first time, but at least you'd have a hope of avoiding subsequent replybot storms for the same address. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nigel Metheringham (nigel) Date: 2002-05-21 08:03 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=31288 and other file ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=558633&group_id…

4 3