Mailman 3 June 2016 - Mailman-Developers

GSoC project - Implement module to process ARC headers
by Stephen J. Turnbull June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

Hi! I'm sorry that I haven't responded before, it's been very busy catching up to $DAYJOB since getting back. > Now the next step would be to change the namespace and make it more > general to accommodate the ARC capability. That is the module now > provides the capability for ARC protocol implementation but still > retains its 'DKIM' namespace. Since this would involve quite a few > changes, and could easily break the setup, I would like your > thoughts on this if there are any good practices to follow here. I don't understand what you're worried about. Of course if you change all the names, especially with some sort of automatic process, there's a pretty good chance of introducing typos. We fix them as we find them, that's all. > The way I can think of doing this is to grep all files and change > the names and then clear all the cache files. Do you mean __pycache__? That will happen automatically for all files with updated API calls. If you haven't updated the source to use the changed API, the calls will break anyway. The only time this is a worry is if you repurpose an existing name to different semantics, and the answer there is "don't do that," because it's problematic anyway. But these will be new names, so shouldn't cause that kind of problem. Re interop: I have a server with a fixed IP which could just pipe mail to a Python script that reads it and passes the message to the ARC module for processing. Then the script can send it back out if necessary.

2 1

Postorius: Search Plugin for List
by Khushbu Parakh June 12, 2016

June 12, 2016

Hi, I am working on search plugin for lists and wondering what would be the best approach, using Ajax or reloading the page and which JS files. Do I need to write urls with the handler for JSON?I have made the UI for search list. What is the best way to approach. Best, Khushbu Parakhhttp://khushbu.strikingly.com/ Arya College Of Engineering and ITLinkedin: http://linkedin.com/in/khushbuparakh@khushbuparakh

4 4

Re: [Mailman-Developers] [Email-SIG] Some parsing/generation issues of email in Python 3
by Stephen J. Turnbull June 10, 2016

June 10, 2016

Hans-Peter Jansen writes: > > I'm willing to bet it will converge to "robust in practice" much > > faster than the previous design did. > > I will take your word on that. Why take my word when you can take my money instead? :-) Keep on with the porting project! > > Patience and understanding of how opensource software development > > works, perhaps. > > Okay, as already said, I'm sorry for sounding overly harsh. Yeah, me, too. I actually saw Barry's and David's posts while composing and decided I didn't have much to add after all, but apparently I managed to send without noticing (bad Emacs! bad Emacs!) before deleting the draft. Sorry about that; you didn't deserve multiple reprimands. > Usually, when I report such problems nowadays, I add a patch > proposal for fixing the issue, but these issues were overwhelming > me. Needless to mention the complexity of the email package itself > and my reluctance of studying RFCs. The email RFCs are probably not worth studying. They're not only quite complex, on many points they are controversial. Leave that to us. ;-) Merely identifying problems (thanks for the test cases, by the way!) is a great contribution.

1 0

One click unsub draft
by Adam McGreggor June 9, 2016

June 9, 2016

May be of interest to some; although I think I recall this is what Mailmans do, although not enforcing https. https://github.com/Lockhead/oneclick/blob/master/draft-herkula-oneclick.txt -- "You've got to remember most anarchists don't get up that early" — Tony Harris, (chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, describing events during the morning of May Day 2001)

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New Interface
by Stephen J. Turnbull June 8, 2016

June 8, 2016

Harshit Bansal writes: > How can this composability be achieved in a model? I mean that the > size of a table is fixed in a model and if a style describes just a > partial set of attributes then what would be stored in other > attributes? (1) In a NoSQL database (MongoDB, for example), you can store a partial record with no preparation. This is a good thing and a bad thing, depending on how the now-you-see-them-now-you-don't fields are used. (2) SQLAlchemy (and the underlying RDBMSes) allow you to have optional fields. This is implemented by storing NULL in the missing field. > Also how would this partial style be applied to a mailing list? A style would be a list of stylets (NOTE! none of the identifiers below are real! All names have been changed to protect my ignorance!): s1 = { notmetoo_default: True, nomail_default: False } s2 = { notmetoo_default: False, ack_default: True } newstyle = [s1, s2] def apply_style(style, mlist): try: mlist.start_transaction() for s in style: # common attributes will overwrite earlier values mlist.apply_stylet(s) # make sure all attributes are set to sane values mlist.validate_style() mlist.commit_transaction() except Exception: mlist.rollback_transaction() > 2: Current 'IStyle' interface allows us to define either a partial > style(stylet, describing just a partial set of attributes) or a > complete style. But is that possible with a model? There should be either an SQLAlchemy option for each attribute to be optional, or maybe the inverse attribute of required. Use that option on the model attributes. > 3: If I go for style composabiltiy as described by you then how would > I represent that idea in REST and Postorius? Basically the same way.

2 1

GSoC project - Implement module to process ARC headers
by Aditya Divekar June 8, 2016

June 8, 2016

Hi! It's been sometime since the GSoC coding period started, and I apologize for putting in this mail so late! The GSoC project is divided into two repositories. ARC implementation - https://gitlab.com/adityadivekar/arc refactored dkimpy package - https://gitlab.com/adityadivekar/sign-message The original dkimpy package hosted on launchpad provides the functions for DKIM signing and verifying of a message. This module extends the functionality by adding support for the ARC set of headers. Now the next step would be to change the namespace and make it more general to accommodate the ARC capability. That is the module now provides the capability for ARC protocol implementation but still retains its 'DKIM' namespace. Since this would involve quite a few changes, and could easily break the setup, I would like your thoughts on this if there are any good practices to follow here. The way I can think of doing this is to grep all files and change the names and then clear all the cache files. Thanks Aditya

1 0

Postorius issue tracker labels
by Stephen J. Turnbull June 5, 2016

June 5, 2016

Hi, all I just went through the labels in the Postorius issue tracker https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/labels and documented the undocumented as well as changing a couple of labels. Comments very welcome. There are two labels whose purpose I'm unclear on, "subscription" and "ui". I think "ui" should be split into "appearance" (CSS) and "workflow" (what operations can be done from which forms). If so, I think "subscription" really should be merged into "workflow" (at least the open issue should be). WDYT? Steve

4 4

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New Interface
by Barry Warsaw June 4, 2016

June 4, 2016

On Jun 04, 2016, at 07:38 PM, Harshit Bansal wrote: >Would you like to keep these attributes(those which are unused and we >don't want to support) or should these be removed? For now, keep them. It would probably make sense to open an issue on gitlab listing the unused attributes to delete. We can mark that as a tech-debt issue and address it outside of the context of your work. >From core's point of view this idea seems to be fine but I am unable to think >of any way of representing this idea in Postorius(since new styles would be >created there)? Yes, the ui issues are challenging. ;) I think it would be fairly easy to represent in REST. >Earlier while discussing we decided to make style composable in terms of >other styles(inheritance and fallback mechanism). For example, if a user >wants to modify only the the autoresponses attributes of Style1, then, he may >create a child style of Style1 and change only the attributes related to the >autoresponses and rest of the attributes will take their values from the >parent style(Style1). Also is there any advantage of making styles >composable in terms of stylets? It allows the admin to only be concerned with the attributes defined in the stylet. It can be fairly difficult otherwise to figure out what a specific stylet modifies. >The new interface will contain only styleable attributes and not any >immutable attributes like created_at. All the immutable attributes >will reside in the existing 'IMailingList' interface. Cool. >> Then it may be possible to do a lot of cool things on stylets, such as >> impose permissions on changing or using one; recording the stylets used >> with a particular mailing list, so if you change the stylet, the mailing >> list automatically changes, etc. > >How will be the permissions enforced without authorization system? Postorius would enforce it for now. When we have the authproxy, it will do it for scripts. >> The only other comment on the above paragraph has to do with requiring a >> style to contain *all* the attributes. How would you handle the >> composability in that case? > >All attributes will be required only in case the style doesn't inherit >from any other base style. In case the style inherits from some other >base style then the dictionary(argument to the constructor) will >contain only those attributes which the user wants to change and rest >of the attributes would be taken from the parent style. > >Also could you suggest some default value(such as 'DEFER') for >styleable attributes that would trigger the fall back mechanism to >take values from the parent style. That's tricky. If we weren't interfacing to a database (i.e. in pure Python), we'd have a marker object, e.g. `INHERIT = object()` but we have to worry about database column types. I'm not sure what the right thing to do there is. -Barry

2 1

Re: [Mailman-Developers] New Interface
by Barry Warsaw June 4, 2016

June 4, 2016

Thanks for posting this Harshit. This is a useful discussion to have, and I have some thoughts, but first a little history. In MM2.1, the MailList class is composed of a number of mixins, each of which implements a general chunk of functionality, such as NNTP or digests, etc. I really didn't like the mixin structure, so for MM3, I collapsed all the style attributes into a single IMailingList interface. As you've noticed, some of the attributes in the model class aren't described in the interface. Those are mostly the legacy attributes which should eventually go away (because they are unused or represent features we don't want to support), or converted to better database types (see the PickleType for accept_these_nonmembers). It's gotten a lot better, but there are still some holdovers from the old MM2.1 code, so more opportunities to clean up and modernize. I've always wanted styles to be composable, by which I mean that a style can describe just a partial set of attributes. For now I'll call these stylets. One stylet might define how autoresponses work, while another might describe how digests work. In a sense, this is analogous to how the composition was broken down in MM2.1, but without all the ugly mixin stuff. The current IStyles support this, but of course they are only applied to mailing lists when they are created, and changing a style does not change any list to which the style was applied. On Jun 01, 2016, at 11:47 PM, Harshit Bansal wrote: >I am thinking of adding a new interface named 'IStyleable' to the >mailman core. All the styleable attributes from the current >'IMailingList' interface will be moved to this new interface. The >current 'IMailingList' interface does not provide documentation for >all the styleable attributes. This new interface will contain all >styleable interfaces arranged in an orderly way with proper >documentation. This new interface then can be extended by the existing >'IMailingList' interface and the new 'IStyle' interface that I am >writing. I think this makes sense. You're refactoring out the interface for the attributes of a mailing list apart from the functionality that a list provides. There may be some attributes which aren't style related, e.g. created_at, and perhaps some that shouldn't get refactored because they identify the list (e.g. list_name and list_id), but we can discuss that. Once you have that refactored, then I think you need a way to say "this stylet sets attributes A, B, and C, but doesn't touch X, Y, and Z". That gives you back the composability without having to worry about partial interfaces; i.e. all IStylet (actual name TBD) interfaces *can* change any style attribute, but it's okay if they change only a subset. Then it may be possible to do a lot of cool things on stylets, such as impose permissions on changing or using one; recording the stylets used with a particular mailing list, so if you change the stylet, the mailing list automatically changes, etc. >Why I felt the need of a new interface? For constructing a new style I am >taking a dictionary as an input to the constructor which is supposed to >contain all the necessary styleable attributes and their corresponding values >as key value pairs and to check whether the dictionary contains all the >styleable attributes or not I will need to have a list of all the styleable >attributes and that can be done very easily if I have an interface >containning all the styleable attributes. I know there are other methods of >getting a list of all the attributes but they are neither pythonic nor stable >as all of them depend on python internals which are liable to change with the >version of python. Let me see if I understand: you want to query the IStyleable interface to know what attributes are allowed in a style. It makes sense in that case to use a separate interface just for that purpose, without cluttering it up with all the other interface bits specifically for mailing list operation (e.g. get_roster(), subscribe(), and immutable attributes like created_at and list_id). The only other comment on the above paragraph has to do with requiring a style to contain *all* the attributes. How would you handle the composability in that case? Cheers, -Barry

2 1

New Interface
by Harshit Bansal June 1, 2016

June 1, 2016

Hi, I am thinking of adding a new interface named 'IStyleable' to the mailman core. All the styleable attributes from the current 'IMailingList' interface will be moved to this new interface. The current 'IMailingList' interface does not provide documentation for all the styleable attributes. This new interface will contain all styleable interfaces arranged in an orderly way with proper documentation. This new interface then can be extended by the existing 'IMailingList' interface and the new 'IStyle' interface that I am writing. Why I felt the need of a new interface? For constructing a new style I am taking a dictionary as an input to the constructor which is supposed to contain all the necessary styleable attributes and their corresponding values as key value pairs and to check whether the dictionary contains all the styleable attributes or not I will need to have a list of all the styleable attributes and that can be done very easily if I have an interface containning all the styleable attributes. I know there are other methods of getting a list of all the attributes but they are neither pythonic nor stable as all of them depend on python internals which are liable to change with the version of python. I had asked Barry for his comments but as he is busy in PyCon so he asked me to redirect my query to mailing list. As this was blocking so I in the meantime I wrote the new interface which can be found here: https://gitlab.com/_Harshit_/mailman/commit/6c94e220cd5f5ba857fa003bdc17919… Please provide your comments/suggestions on whether should I continue with this or not. Thanks, Harshit Bansal.

1 0