Mailman 3 June 2006 - Mailman-Developers

Topics revisited:
by Mark Sapiro 19 Jun '06

19 Jun '06

After starting a thread on this list (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2006-May/018787.html> and also posting a request for feedback on Mailman-Users <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2006-June/051588.html> which received no replies, I think I'm almost done with this. My patch is attached for review, comment. Basically, I implement a new Utils.strip_verbose_pattern() function which converts verbose patterns to single-line, non-verbose equivalents and add code to versions.py for a one time conversion of existing topics regexps. I then modify the Gui, etc so that all future multi-line patterns are stored as entered, but compiled and used with the lines connected by '|'. Specifically, I would like advice and comment on two things. First since the strip_verbose_pattern() function is basically a one-time, list conversion function, would it be better added to versions.py rather than Utils.py. Second, when a topic pattern is first entered, an attempt is made to compile it, and if this throws an exception, the error is reported in the Gui and the topic is ignored. A similar thing is also done in MailList.py which will catch (eventually) and log bad topic regexps that might be entered with config_list or withlist. My question here is in the error message and log message, The pattern I report as invalid is the '|' joined pattern and not the original entry. I think this makes more sense, but I'm interested in what others think. Finally, in writing this post I have thought of another issue. Someone may have a saved config_list 'template' with old style 'verbose' topic regexps which wouldn't get converted if applied to a new 2.2.x list. Is this something to be concerned about? Note that this could be an issue any time a list attribute is deleted or has its set of values manipulated. -- Mark Sapiro <msapiro(a)value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

1 0

edit moderated messages
by Haluk Durmus 14 Jun '06

14 Jun '06

Hello, Is there any body working on this task ? [ 1198375 ] edit moderated messages directly on admindb page If not I will give it a try. thx, Haluk

2 1

2.1.8 documentation mismatch
by David Lee 09 Jun '06

09 Jun '06

(Background: new to Mailman. Trialling 2.1.8 prior to wider roll-out.) Minor mismatch in web interface terminology: Whilst guiding a potential list-owner through the approval/moderation procedure, I spotted an inconsistency. A typical "http://.../admindb/..." page ("Administrative requests for mailing list: ...") has a four way radio button, with one being labelled "Accept". But its "More detailed instructions" link to "Detailed instructions for the administrative database" then has this button described under the label "Approve". This mixture of terminology seems to occur in other places also. You might want to consider rationalising these to the same thing for the sake of moderators who might be (say) secretarial staff. Hope that helps. -- : David Lee I.T. Service : : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : Durham University : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road : : Durham DH1 3LE : : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. :

6 45

archiving size issue
by Fil 09 Jun '06

09 Jun '06

Hello, my server's drive is saturated now and my problem #1 is with the mailing-list archives. I have a total of 5GB of archives in .mbox format... which make a whopping 12GB when you add the html-generated archives. This makes me think that we might have room for improvement here... either to "archive on another computer" (using ssh maybe?), or to generate the archive HTML pages on the fly (with proper caching of the thread structure of course). It would also help a lot if the Message-Id were part of the url, I think. I'm not looking for a solution, but hints would already be great. -- Fil

5 6

Mailman on a cluster
by Ian Eiloart 08 Jun '06

08 Jun '06

Hi, I'm looking at running Mailman on a cluster of servers, sharing a single disk with Apple XSan. I presume that everything done through the web interface must be resilient to multiple simultaneous attempts to modify - say - a list membership. So, I expect that I can put the list databases on a shared file system. But, what about the queue runners. Is it safe to share the queues between servers? If its safe to run multiple queue runners on one queue on one machine, then I should be OK - but I'm not sure that Mailman does that. If not, then I'm probably safer leaving the queues on unshared file systems, and accepting that a some queued items won't get processed while a cluster member is unavailable. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex

4 7

update to MysqlMemberAdaptor
by Fil 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

Hi everybody, there was a bug in "my" version of MysqlAdaptor, in the changeMemberAddress method: it has been corrected @ http://trac.rezo.net/trac/rezo/changeset/75 -- Fil

1 0

Topic regexps
by Mark Sapiro 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '06

There is a problem with Topic regexps. The regexp entry is compiled in re.VERBOSE mode. This can be good, but also causes problems as the 'help' doesn't mention this. Further, the description says 'Topic keywords, one per line, to match against each message.' The implication is if I put one two three in the regexp box, that this topic will match keywords 'one', 'two' or 'three', but actually it matches only 'onetwothree'. I see several ways to address this. 1) change the processing of this field to effectively join the lines with '|' - presumably this will break existing multiline entries, but possibly they (at least ones which already contain '|') can be converted. 2) do 1) as a list or mm_cfg option which defaults to not doing it. 3) change the description and help for the regexp to correctly reflect what happens. What do others think? -- Mark Sapiro <msapiro(a)value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

6 12

Hooks for external archivers
by Gareth McCaughan 02 Jun '06

02 Jun '06

Suppose you're using Mailman with a separate archiving system such as Lurker or mod_mbox or something. Then there are a few points at which the external archiver needs to be informed of what Mailman is up to, including at least these: - Creation of a new list - Some changes to config of an existing list - Arrival of a new message - Removal of a list (maybe) At the moment (I'm using 2.1.8) I think the only such notification is for the arrival of a new message, at which point PUBLIC_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER or PRIVATE_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER gets invoked. In my local setup, I've tentatively added a new hook that I've equally tentatively called LIST_INFO_UPDATE_COMMAND; if it's not None, it gets invoked whenever a list object's Save method is called (after %-formatting using the list's configvars plus an extra entry for the list's canonical name). That works well for my needs, but I'm under no delusion that it's clearly optimal. Is there a Right Thing that I should have done instead? If not, should Mailman grow some more hooks for interaction with external archivers? (Here's a possibly tempting Wrong Thing: don't have separate hooks, just check everything whenever a new message arrives. But this is inefficient, and more importantly it means that changes to list information won't be noticed until the next message is sent, which for low-traffic lists might be some time after the change.) -- g

3 5