Re: [Mailman-Developers] documentation for config.pck elements?
Dan Mick <dmick@utopia.West.Sun.COM> writes:
It might be that inverting the problem might be the right answer: Mailman 2.1 goes through an API for all "member"-type queries, and so perhaps storing the member info external to config.db via a new "member-adaptor" interface, so that TMDA could also access it through a stable interface, would be the right Mailman/TMDA integration answer? See MemberAdaptor.py and OldStyleMemberships.py.
That would certainly make things easier, but the "integration" is easy enough as it is. TMDA just uses core Python to reach into the config.db or config.pck and extract e-mail addresses from the various attributes.
"ease" wasn't the point; the point is that "reaching into config.db" is unsupported, whereas "plugin membership module" *is* intended to be supported, and therefore stable interface. Then, since you've got your choice of storage formats, the world's your oyster as far as sharing between Mailman and TMDA.
Granted, it's a lot more work, but it's a blessed interface as opposed to "looking under the hood", which is almost certainly going to break sometime in the future.
Interesting, though; just trying out SpamAssassin, and while it's working fairly well right now, the concept of TMDA is interesting now that I've spent some brainpower on out-of-the-box ideas about spam filtering.
Well, nothing against SpamAssassin, but programs like that were why I wrote TMDA. Overly complex, a risk of false-positives, and not effective enough (for me). I talk more about this on the TMDA homepage. Plus, TMDA is written in Python. :-)
Yeah, I read that, which is why I said the concept was interesting... although SA is working pretty well for me right now. The integration with my mail system was a lot easier to grok, if not do.
It's not very obvious to me that I can use it, though, since I'm not in a position to change my first-line MTAs here at work, and I'd be willing to bet they don't forward the user-extension form of address.
You can use whatever you want as the recipient delimiter including `+' which is the default under Sendmail.
Under relatively-recent Sendmail, yeah, but I wasn't willing to believe that all our various mailhosts were relatively-recent.
I just sent a test message to ``dmick+test@utopia.West.Sun.COM'' and it seems to have gone through fine.
I did just get that message, though. Hmm. Well, anyway, my use of TMDF is not exactly on-topic for mm-devel. Um...what's your email address? (d'oh! :) (never mind, I have it.)
Dan Mick <dmick@utopia.West.Sun.COM> writes:
"ease" wasn't the point; the point is that "reaching into config.db" is unsupported, whereas "plugin membership module" *is* intended to be supported, and therefore stable interface. Then, since you've got your choice of storage formats, the world's your oyster as far as sharing between Mailman and TMDA.
Sounds good to me, all I'm saying is that until this is implemented, I'm still in business.
I'd imagine my wanting access to the member' addresses from another application isn't all that uncommon. Mine just happens to be written in Python which made this easy. It might be nice to optionally be able to "separate" attributes like
member', and store them along
side in a more universal format like text or DBM, rather than keeping
them locked up inside config.pck where non-Python apps have a hard
time getting at them.
Perhaps this is just what you are suggesting. :-)
-- (TMDA (http://tmda.sourceforge.net/)) (user-level UCE intrusion prevention)
"JRM" == Jason R Mastaler <jason-list-mailman-developers@mastaler.com> writes:
JRM> I'd imagine my wanting access to the `member' addresses from
JRM> another application isn't all that uncommon. Mine just
JRM> happens to be written in Python which made this easy. It
JRM> might be nice to optionally be able to "separate" attributes
JRM> like `member', and store them along side in a more universal
JRM> format like text or DBM, rather than keeping them locked up
JRM> inside config.pck where non-Python apps have a hard time
JRM> getting at them.
JRM> Perhaps this is just what you are suggesting. :-)
Yes! Only, not now. You're safe for MM2.1.
-Barry
participants (3)
-
barry@zope.com
-
Dan Mick
-
Jason R. Mastaler