Re: [Mailman-Developers] Beta2 - Bug in archiver?
I can't find anything anywhere in 2.0beta2 that defines "SetHeader()". That could be a problem. Archiver.py is not supposed to call SetHeader() anymore, but apparently, as of 2.0beta2, it still does. It appears to be fixed in revision 1.21 of Archiver.py. I guess 2.0beta2 is just broken in this respect.
The newer Archiver.py uses "post['Date'] = time.ctime(time.time())" in place of "post.SetHeader..."
diff -r1.20 -r1.21 160c160 < post.SetHeader('Date', time.ctime(time.time()))
post['Date'] = time.ctime(time.time())
173c173 < post.SetHeader('Date', olddate)
post['Date'] = olddate
192c192 < if mm_cfg.ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX == -1:
if mm_cfg.ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX == -1 or not self.archive:
(There's also a revision 1.22, so I don't really advocate using this..)
I've poked at this a little but I'm not making any headway. Not being very python literate, it's probably something simple that I'm missing. Nontheless, I figured I'd bounce it off the experts....
This is 2.0Beta2 running under Mandrake Linux on a PIII with sendmail 8.9.3. Python version is: Python 1.5.2 (#1, Apr 25 2000, 12:39:13) [GCC pgcc-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 on linux2
Seems to be a hole somewhere related to the date parsing code in the archiver.
In logs/error I get the following traceback whenever a message is posted to the list:
Apr 25 16:35:05 2000 post(28927): Traceback (innermost last): post(28927): File "/home/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/Archiver.py", line 204, in ArchiveMail post(28927): self.__archive_to_mbox(msg) post(28927): File "/home/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/Archiver.py", line 160, in __archive_to_mbox post(28927): post.SetHeader('Date', time.ctime(time.time())) post(28927): AttributeError: SetHeader
The message gets forwarded to the list correctly. It just doesn't get archived.
For what it's worth.... the message looks like this when it comes through the list. I don't see anything abviously broken in the headers:
From f500-admin@o6.proadmin.com Wed Apr 26 15:26:48 2000 Return-Path: <f500-admin@o6.proadmin.com> Received: from o6.proadmin.com (o6.proadmin.com [208.195.160.175]) by o3.proadmin.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/ProAdmin) with ESMTP id PAA28760 for <edc@proadmin.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:48 -0700 Received: from o6.proadmin.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by o6.proadmin.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/ProAdmin) with ESMTP id PAA00608 for <edc@proadmin.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:48 -0700 Received: from o3.proadmin.com ([199.108.70.172]) by o6.proadmin.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/ProAdmin) with ESMTP id PAA00603 for <f500@o6.proadmin.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:47 -0700 Received: (from edc@localhost) by o3.proadmin.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/ProAdmin) id PAA28756 for f500@o6.proadmin.com; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:42 -0700 From: "Eric D. Christensen" <edc@ns.proadmin.com> Message-Id: <200004262226.PAA28756@o3.proadmin.com> To: f500@o6.proadmin.com Subject: [F500] test from unix Sender: f500-admin@o6.proadmin.com Errors-To: f500-admin@o6.proadmin.com X-BeenThere: f500@o6.proadmin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta2 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: f500@o6.proadmin.com List-Id: The Formula 500 Mailing List <f500.o6.proadmin.com>
test
F500 mailing list F500@o6.proadmin.com http://216.139.10.131/mailman/listinfo/f500
Any clues would be appreciated - since I obviously don't have one! :-)
--
Eric D. Christensen ProAdmin, Inc. Email: edc@proadmin.com http://www.proadmin.com Phone: 408-776-3410 Fax: 408-776-3420
Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Yup... that was it Dan. Thanks! I just applied the diff.... didn't bother grabbing 1.22 out of CVS. I'll wait for beta 3...
That gets things working enough to actually put one of my lists online with beta 2 to see what happens. I've been testing for a few days and everything else seems to be fairly stable. A few weird things here and there, but overall it mostly seems to work. I guess I'll find out more when I put a real list on it later this week.
Eric D. Christensen ProAdmin, Inc. Serious System Administration (408)776-3410
-----Original Message----- From: Dan Mick [mailto:Dan.Mick@West.Sun.COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 7:42 PM To: mailman-developers@python.org; edc@ns.proadmin.com Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Beta2 - Bug in archiver?
I can't find anything anywhere in 2.0beta2 that defines "SetHeader()". That could be a problem. Archiver.py is not supposed to call SetHeader() anymore, but apparently, as of 2.0beta2, it still does. It appears to be fixed in revision 1.21 of Archiver.py. I guess 2.0beta2 is just broken in this respect.
The newer Archiver.py uses "post['Date'] = time.ctime(time.time())" in place of "post.SetHeader..."
diff -r1.20 -r1.21 160c160 < post.SetHeader('Date', time.ctime(time.time()))
post['Date'] = time.ctime(time.time())173c173 < post.SetHeader('Date', olddate)
post['Date'] = olddate192c192 < if mm_cfg.ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX == -1:
if mm_cfg.ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX == -1 or not self.archive:(There's also a revision 1.22, so I don't really advocate using this..)
I've poked at this a little but I'm not making any headway. Not being very python literate, it's probably something simple that I'm missing. Nontheless, I figured I'd bounce it off the experts....
This is 2.0Beta2 running under Mandrake Linux on a PIII with sendmail 8.9.3. Python version is: Python 1.5.2 (#1, Apr 25 2000, 12:39:13) [GCC pgcc-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 on linux2
Seems to be a hole somewhere related to the date parsing code in the archiver.
In logs/error I get the following traceback whenever a message is posted to the list:
Apr 25 16:35:05 2000 post(28927): Traceback (innermost last): post(28927): File "/home/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/Archiver.py", line 204, in ArchiveMail post(28927): self.__archive_to_mbox(msg) post(28927): File "/home/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/Archiver.py", line 160, in __archive_to_mbox post(28927): post.SetHeader('Date', time.ctime(time.time())) post(28927): AttributeError: SetHeader
The message gets forwarded to the list correctly. It just doesn't get archived.
For what it's worth.... the message looks like this when it comes through the list. I don't see anything abviously broken in the headers:
From f500-admin@o6.proadmin.com Wed Apr 26 15:26:48 2000 Return-Path: <f500-admin@o6.proadmin.com> Received: from o6.proadmin.com (o6.proadmin.com [208.195.160.175]) by o3.proadmin.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/ProAdmin) with ESMTP id PAA28760 for <edc@proadmin.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:48 -0700 Received: from o6.proadmin.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by o6.proadmin.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/ProAdmin) with ESMTP id PAA00608 for <edc@proadmin.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:48 -0700 Received: from o3.proadmin.com ([199.108.70.172]) by o6.proadmin.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/ProAdmin) with ESMTP id PAA00603 for <f500@o6.proadmin.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:47 -0700 Received: (from edc@localhost) by o3.proadmin.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/ProAdmin) id PAA28756 for f500@o6.proadmin.com; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:26:42 -0700 From: "Eric D. Christensen" <edc@ns.proadmin.com> Message-Id: <200004262226.PAA28756@o3.proadmin.com> To: f500@o6.proadmin.com Subject: [F500] test from unix Sender: f500-admin@o6.proadmin.com Errors-To: f500-admin@o6.proadmin.com X-BeenThere: f500@o6.proadmin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta2 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: f500@o6.proadmin.com List-Id: The Formula 500 Mailing List <f500.o6.proadmin.com>
test
F500 mailing list F500@o6.proadmin.com http://216.139.10.131/mailman/listinfo/f500
Any clues would be appreciated - since I obviously don't have one! :-)
--
Eric D. Christensen ProAdmin, Inc. Email: edc@proadmin.com http://www.proadmin.com Phone: 408-776-3410 Fax: 408-776-3420
Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
participants (2)
-
Dan Mick -
Eric D. Christensen