Mailman 3 March 2015 - Mailman-Developers

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Some doubts, feature request and bug in postorius
by Abhilash Raj 11 Mar '15

11 Mar '15

Hi Ashish, On 8 March 2015 at 15:28, Ashish Kumar <coolyashish(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I am new to postorius interface. I was going through it and In some places > I was confused and Hence, made below points for discussion. > > 1. How to register a user through postorius web interface? For now, people can register only through Mozzila Persona. > 2. After login [ Through super user ] , If I go to mailman settings page > (My settings) > - Profile : Only name is there and every other field like first > name, last name, irc name, etc. is empty. No option to edit it. Yes, those are not implemented yet. > - Add Email Address: There it seems a kind of bug that I am not > able to add an email address there. [Please look at screeshot 1 and 2 for > details.] This does look like a bug to me too, if you haven't filed a bug report yet, please do! If would be even better if you try to fix it too. > 3. To Do List : No option to add To Do. It always says "There are no > pending tasks at the present time." [See screenshot 3] Yes, this too is not implemented yet. The "Dashboard for Admins/Moderators" project is meant to implement all these things in postorius. > Some feature request: > > 4. In create list and create domain : There are option to create and > delete, Shouldn't there be option for Edit list or domain. > > 5. There is option for mass subscribe. Shouldn't mass un-subscribe be there. > > > > > Thanks > Ashish Kumar > irc nick: ashishk > > _______________________________________________ > Mailman-Developers mailing list > Mailman-Developers(a)python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers > Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 > Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/raj.abhilash1%40… > > Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 -- thanks, Abhilash Raj

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Regarding the idea " A Dashboard for Admins/Owners/Moderators "
by Abhilash Raj 11 Mar '15

11 Mar '15

Hi Raja, On 11 March 2015 at 01:39, rajashekar reddy <rajashekarreddy2894(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hello , > > I am Raja shekar Reddy, i have read the idea of "A Dashboard for > Admins/Owners/Moderators " in ideas page started of thinking it , i had > good knowledge in javascript ,html,python and had confidence that i could > do this. > > What I understood is " now for every list there is one seperate page and > now i should integrate to one page so that all lists should be in one page > and make easy for the user to change at one place" What you need to start with is clearly stating what do you mean by "Dashboard", What all things would be there? Which ones among those are already implemented (maybe not on the dashboard, but somewhere else)? And which ones you will be implementing. You can read through the logs of this list (link in the footer) about the previous discussions on the same topic. > I want to continue to do this and help me that i am going in a correct path > ? and also how to start to contribute . Please read the Ideas Page carefully, you will find enough links there to get started. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here! -- thanks, Abhilash Raj

1 0

Mailman error after restoring backup
by jovino Borret 11 Mar '15

11 Mar '15

Hi all, We have a problem in the Mailman Server and I had to restore a image from some months ago. After restoring this image, I have restored /var/lib/mailman, /usr/lib/mailman and /var/spool of the system. The problem is that after restarting Postfix and Mailman, many error messages Is been logged in the /var/log/mailman. He is some examples: 1) /var/log/mailman/post Mar 10 15:20:20 2015 (1454) post to uerjxxi from weber(a)globo.com, size=3146, message-id=<EA367EE3-C7A4-4B8E-8464-D5B246CE68F4(a)globo.com>, 206 failures 2) /var/log/mailman/qrunner Mar 10 15:20:46 2015 (1449) ArchRunner qrunner caught SIGTERM. Stopping. Mar 10 15:20:46 2015 (1449) ArchRunner qrunner exiting. 3) /var/log/mailman/smtp-failure Mar 10 17:07:23 2015 (1701) delivery to lullimilman(a)uol.com.br failed with code -1: Server not connected I am sure that Postfix is running ok (I have done some tests). I think Mailman is not "talking" with Postfix, I mean it is not working properly with Postfix. Thanks a lot for any help. My server list is not working. --- Este email está limpo de vírus e malwares porque a proteção do avast! Antivírus está ativa. http://www.avast.com

3 8

Fast development environment setup for newbies using mmdev_bootstrap
by Ankush Sharma 11 Mar '15

11 Mar '15

Hello everyone, The newbies starting to contribute to mailman sometimes face difficulty in setting up the dev environment for Mailman. I created a repo <https://github.com/black-perl/mmdev_bootstrap> to automate setting up mailman for usage and dev environment interactively. It automatically creates and manages the virtual environments for you. It saves a lot of time consumed in setting up dev environment for the new branch created each time you need to work on a new feature and wants to fix a bug. You just need to do changes and push your work. Have a read out more on this: https://github.com/black-perl/mmdev_bootstrap#description <https://github.com/black-perl/mmdev_bootstrap#description> to know more about it. Hope it would prove helpful to newbies and to oldies too :) Thanks. Ankush Sharma github.com/black-perl

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers
by Daniel Kahn Gillmor 11 Mar '15

11 Mar '15

Hi Murray-- On Fri 2015-02-27 14:46:40 -0500, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Sorry, by "sign" I meant "add a footer". I probably said "sign" because > this is related to some DKIM work I've been planning, and the morning's > caffeine was already wearing off. :) > Thanks for that detailed answer (and Barry for his followup). It's > precisely what I was looking for. > > How absurd would it be to propose a flag for Mailman that would take your > first case (non-MIME, or single-part text/plain) and convert it to a > multipart/mixed with a child part of the original text/plain, and then > apply the algorithm you have? I'm not one to make any decisions for mailman, but this sounds pretty reasonable to me. In fact, the only argument against ever having such a switch *not* set is that non-MIME-aware text-only MUAs will now see some crufty MIME boundaries in the message that they didn't see before. I'd bet the number of users of non-MIME-aware text-only MUAs receiving mail from mailman that are incapable of wading through a bit of extra MIME boundary info on otherwise text/plain messages is vanishingly small. Most of those folks are probably at least used to seeing it as a result of the overwhelming predominance of multipart/alternative on today's SMTP network. > The impetus here is DKIM survivability across lists. Suppose we had a DKIM > canonicalization that was MIME-aware, so that it could sign the specific > MIME parts or sets of parts. That signature would fail on the message as a > whole -- with the footer part added -- but could in theory pass if an > appended part were omitted from canonicalization. To put it in context, > suppose there were a DKIM canonicalization where the signer signed (using > your examples) the CDE message; the receiver gets FGHI which fails, but > also has enough information to know that merely verifying FGH will pass; it > then knows that FGH was "legitimate" and I was added post-signing, and may > or may not be "safe" (for some value thereof) content. > > What I'm worried about with such a design is the trivial text/plain > message. Obviously merely appending the footer destroys any hope of > validating only the original content. We'd have to entertain the idea that > Mailman would make the simple message into a multipart/mixed + text/plain, > then append the footer part and sign that; the verifier would drop the > footer and then strip off the MIME to see if it can verify the original > signature that way. That seems like its easy to get wrong, though it's > likely to be a very common case. right, the MIME boundaries provide the parsing framework to enable this kind of sub-part DKIM-verification. One issue this process brings up is that it's now necessary to treat pretty much every part of the message as though it is multipart/signed -- that is, it needs to be handled bytewise opaquely, on pain of breaking the DKIM header. We already know that there are tools that do things like re-encode messages from base64 to q-p, or change character sets, or just re-flow long lines (FSVO "long") in the mime boundary subheaders. They're not supposed to do this with multipart/signed messages, because the RFCs point out that opaque handling is required, but they sometimes break them anyway. I imagine the same risk would now apply to all DKIM-signed messages using your scheme. With that caveat in mind, it's clear that without your proposal, all DKIM-signatures of messages with footers will break anyway. So this does seem to be a strict improvement, even if there are a few corner cases that aren't fully covered. --dkg

3 2

Regarding the idea " A Dashboard for Admins/Owners/Moderators "
by rajashekar reddy 11 Mar '15

11 Mar '15

hello , I am Raja shekar Reddy, i have read the idea of "A Dashboard for Admins/Owners/Moderators " in ideas page started of thinking it , i had good knowledge in javascript ,html,python and had confidence that i could do this. What I understood is " now for every list there is one seperate page and now i should integrate to one page so that all lists should be in one page and make easy for the user to change at one place" I want to continue to do this and help me that i am going in a correct path ? and also how to start to contribute . Thanking you, Raja Shekar Reddy

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Approach for Post-Throttling
by Aanand Shekhar Roy 10 Mar '15

10 Mar '15

> I think you should provide an option to just throttle the user on a given list, too. >Possibly with different default throttling parameters. Should I provide an option to combine both of these options into one ? Or an option to use any one of the two throttlings? > I don't see why you would have a separate table for messages. Just add the post_after_time >attribute to the message's metadata. Yes, since we will make changes in the msg metadata so now we will not require database 2, database 1 will be required for counting post on threads, also, whether the threads are same or not will be decided according to the subject header. For a subject header "abc" we consider the following subjects as the same: Re: abc Fwd: abc abc We will strip the prefixes Re, Fwd off before adding them to database 1. Also I had to ask, would it be good if we provide the list-admin with an option to bypass this throttling for some people? Like the mailman-developers in this case, we may allow few mailman developers bypass this throttling effect and those developers will be decided by the list-admin. Regards Aanand

2 1

GSOC, Anonymous Lists
by Stephen J. Turnbull 10 Mar '15

10 Mar '15

Pavan Koli writes: > I have a doubt, while implementing anonymous lists do we have to store the > email ids in encrypted form in the database. I have the same doubt. You need to define "anonymous list". In particular, specify who is, and who is not, supposed to be able to 1. See email addresses of subscribers. 2. Figure out whether two posts are from the same person. as well whether you need to 3. Ensure that subscribers' posts can't be spoofed. > As people having access to database can view the original email > ids. It's worse than that. People who have access to the MTA's mail queue or can change its configuration files can see them too, as well as those who have access to MTAs on relay MX hosts and the posters' MX.

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Discussion about Mailman plugins(GSOC 2015)
by Stephen J. Turnbull 10 Mar '15

10 Mar '15

Prakash kumar writes: > I am very sorry but I could not fully understand our last > discussion. Are you trying to say that I should work on sanitizing > the message and building a spam filter? There are two possible responses to a message that contains content that we suspect the user doesn't want distributed. (1) Don't send the message (this is what I meant by stop/hold). (2) Remove or obscure the sensitive information (this is what I meant by body filtering, that is, filter out sensitive terms but let the rest of the message go through). It is not obvious to me that sanitizing the message is a good idea, although it's probably easy to implement (just substitute "[redacted]" or a similar string for each occurance of sensitive information detected) once you have a good filter. However, probably these filters will be built by "ordinary folks" who don't specialize in natural language processing, and they are unlikely to be able to write appropriate regexps. As for writing a spam filter, no, that's not appropriate for Mailman org. There are plenty of good ones (SpamAssassin, SpamBayes) already, so writing a handler to integrate one or more of them would be the right way to go. I'm still not happy[1] with the idea of multiple "plugins" as a single project, but it might be reasonable to assemble a battery of pluging that handle several kinds of abuse (the body content filter, plus SpamAssassin, plus ClamAV) for example. Footnotes: [1] That means that given a choice of a single-task proposal and a multi-plugin proposal of similar quality, I would definitely choose the single-task proposal to mentor. Other mentors may feel differently.

2 1

GSOC, Anonymous Lists
by Pavan Koli 10 Mar '15

10 Mar '15

I have a doubt, while implementing anonymous lists do we have to store the email ids in encrypted form in the database. As people having access to database can view the original email ids. But if we do encryption and decryption it'll add an extra overhead and slow down many operations.

1 0