Mailman 3 March 2016 - Mailman-Developers

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Introduction
by Abhilash Raj March 3, 2016

March 3, 2016

Hi Jasvir, On 02/29/2016 11:25 AM, Jasvir Singh wrote: > Hello everyone. > I am Jasvir Singh Grewal, a graduate student from CSU Long Beach. I am > feeling very excited to introduce myself on this mailing list. I have > been working on open source technologies since 3 years. Last 2 years I > have spent primarily working on Django and Python and it'll be a > pleasure for me if I can use my skills for Mailman. Thank you for taking out time to contribute to Mailman. You can … [View More]

1 0

Regarding GSoC 2016 project ideas
by Sreyas Chaithanya March 3, 2016

March 3, 2016

Hello, I am Sreyas Chaithanya studying in Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi. I found the GitLab/development tools integration idea interesting. I would like to work on that project in GSoC 2016. I wrote the core of an event management system in my college in Django and python2.7 but I’m also comfortable with python3. Could someone help me get started? Regards, S Sreyas Chaithanya, IIT(BHU)

2 1

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Query regarding GSoC 2016
by Abhilash Raj March 3, 2016

March 3, 2016

Hi Sujay, On 03/02/2016 06:26 AM, Sujay S Kumar wrote: > Hello, > > My name is Sujay S Kumar, currently studying Computer Science and > Engineering at PES Institute of Technology, Bangalore. > I am interested in working on the list styles project as part of GSoC 16. Welcome! Just to let you know, the styles aren't exactly implemented in Django(i.e the parts on Mailman 3 in django), but in Core. They define the behavior of a mailing-list and can be thought as list-settings-… [View More]

1 0

[GSoC] Guidance needed for GitLab issues project
by Gurkirpal Singh March 3, 2016

March 3, 2016

Hi, I'm interested in working on this project for the GSoC. After some reading and thinking I have broken the project into the following rough list of smaller jobs : - Functionality for open issues. - Ability to select some specific messages only or a link to discussion. - Functionality for closing issues. In case, after some discussion it is decided that opening the issue was a wrong idea. - Duplicate issue notifier (like the one explained on the blog). - Administration could be added which … [View More]

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] ARC module implementation [was: GSOC 2016]
by Stephen J. Turnbull March 3, 2016

March 3, 2016

[Aside @Barry: what's the current state of DMARC handling in Mailman 3? (I assume below that there isn't any yet.) I guess porting some or all of the Mailman 2 facilities be a good GSoC project?] Please keep GSoC traffic on Mailman-Developers. Other developers have need-to-know, as do other students. Also, there's a good chance one of the other developers will get around to answering before I do, especially as I just got a pile of work dumped on me at work (one of our adjunct faculty got … [View More]suddenly recalled to the Bank of Japan, leaving 8 units of courses unstaffed from April 1). I'll stay current with Mailman as much as a I can, but for the next few weeks that means responding to non-work mail in 48 hours. > The deliver method in deliver.py is responsible for sending the > messages, and the errors are caught here and then classified as > permanent or temporary. So currently, if I am not wrong, all the > rejections that Mailman faces due to the dmarc reject policy of > some domains, permanent error 550 I think, are caught here if there > are any. I don't think so. You'll not catch them in mta.deliver.py, which talks to your outgoing SMTP gateway, which normally does not do DMARC processing. On the other hand, the outgoing gateway doesn't make Mailman wait until it knows what its remote peer will do; it queues the message. So any rejections you see in mta.deliver.deliver() are a local matter. Permanent failures likely indicate a configuration problem, while temporary failures are probably due to maintenance on the MTA or network problems or the like. It's the final recipient MTA[1] that does DMARC processing, perhaps hours or days after deliver() has returned :-). At that point a (new!) bounce message is created and sent back through the mail system to Sender or Errors-To, which is <list>-bounces. So this is handled by the bounce runner, not the outgoing runner. > I was curious to know how this specific problem is being handled by > mailman right now. As in, how are the cases of subscribers of yahoo > using mailman currently being handled? First, subscribers using Yahoo! are not the problem. The DMARC problem is that when anybody from Yahoo! posts, *all* subscribers are at risk[2] of having their service bounce the post. If it was just Yahoo! subscribers, we wouldn't have to do anything except tell them that their mail service is deliberately sabotaged by Yahoo! It's the collateral damage to well-behaved third parties that makes DMARC abuse by AOL and Yahoo! so horrible. Second, in Mailman 3, currently nothing is done AFAIK. The first patch was submitted against Mailman 2 before release of Mailman 3.0. People using Mailman 3 at this point are unlikely to have large populations of p=reject posters. In Mailman 2, there are a number of options. The one I recommend is adding aol.com and yahoo.com to the subscription and poster ban lists.<0.7 wink/> This has the advantage (?) of also being usable in Mailman 3. A second is to configure the list without transforming the message at all (no Subject tags, header, or footer), thus preserving any valid DKIM signature. This also works in Mailman 3. These are standard configuration options which you might use anyway for completely different reasons. However, they sort undermine the argument for using Mailman in the first place for many sites. The third, more pleasant, alternative is to configure the list to transform the message by changing the *address* in RFC5322.From to the list, and putting some amount of user identity in the display name of the RFC5322.From (eg, "From Aditya Divekar (adityadivekar03(a)gmail.com) via Mailman-Users") of all messages. A fourth is to treat the message as a literal forward by including the message as a message/rfc822 part. These transformations are done by Mailman Handlers. Each has disadvantages. From-munging basically prevents the recipient from filtering on From. Few MUAs know how to handle a message "wrapped" in a MIME part pleasantly, and some (especially AppleMail on iPhone) choke badly. Finally, the most sophisticated alternative is to parse the address out of From, and do the DMARC DNS dance to determine if the sending domain has a p=reject or p=quarantine policy. If so, use either the From-munging strategy or the MIME-wrapping strategy. These still have the disadvantages described above, but they only apply to posts From domains abusing DMARC. I don't think any of these would be that hard to port to Mailman 3, it just hasn't been done yet. Footnotes: [1] This concept is a little ambiguous, in the case of things like .forward files that point to another mail server. [2] If their mail service participates in DMARC (there's no way of knowing that unless you're a user there), and if they don't do their own mitigation (eg, GMail treats many messages from p=reject domains as p=quarantine). [View Less]

3 2

Congratulations to us! We're officially in GSoC again!
by Stephen J. Turnbull March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

... especially to Florian, who seems to be on his way to becoming MGOAFL (Mailman GSoC Org Admin For Life)[1]. And of course Barry (who has a real -FL title!), and the mentors. All that goes without saying, sort of, but I'd also like to mention all the folks who have been following this list and occasionally posting a comment or suggestion. Another special thanks to several folks who haven't signed up as mentors (yet! we can always use more[2]) but have offered various kinds of advice. I'd … [View More]

2 1

Congratulations to us! We're officially in GSoC again!
by Stephen J. Turnbull March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

... especially to Florian, who seems to be on his way to becoming MGOAFL (Mailman GSoC Org Admin For Life)[1]. And of course Barry (who has a real -FL title!), and the mentors. All that goes without saying, sort of, but I'd also like to mention all the folks who have been following this list and occasionally posting a comment or suggestion. Another special thanks to several folks who haven't signed up as mentors (yet! we can always use more[2]) but have offered various kinds of advice. And … [View More]

1 0

Query regarding GSoC 2016
by Sujay S Kumar March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

Hello, My name is Sujay S Kumar, currently studying Computer Science and Engineering at PES Institute of Technology, Bangalore. I am interested in working on the list styles project as part of GSoC 16. I have thorough knowledge of Django as I interned at Plivo and HackerEarth in the Django profile.I am also one of the open source contributors to Django. Please visit www.sujayskumar.com for more information about me. Regards, Sujay S Kumar PES Institute of Technology, Bangalore

1 0

Regexp filtering
by Stephen J. Turnbull March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

On Mailman-Users, Mark Sapiro writes: > Further, in the ban_list (and many other places in Mailman) if an > address is intended to be a regular expression pattern, it must begin > with '^', so you really want > > ^.*(a)domain\.com$ > > to match any_address(a)domain.com. I hope we haven't propagated this rather user-unfriendly interface (the convention of accepting both regexps and literals, distinguishing by "^" in column 0) to Mailman 3. Even as a Python … [View More]

4 11

About working on Issue #67
by Stephen J. Turnbull March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

I'm certainly happy to see somebody interested in working on this! However, I have some questions about exactly what the development strategy should be (see my comment on #67). We should talk about it on this list so everybody sees it, then move to #67 (or wherever) when the strategic issues are clear. Are you thinking about doing this for GSoC? If so, we all need to talk about this and get it nailed down. This kind of thing can be a real hairball, something that you don't want to do "on … [View More]

3 3