Re: [Mailman-Developers] bugtraq submission warning: email address harvesting exploit
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:40:48 +0000 Richard Barrett <r.barrett@openinfo.co.uk> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2003, at 13:32, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:12:45 +0000 Richard Barrett <r.barrett@openinfo.co.uk> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2003, at 00:48, J C Lawrence wrote:
For me, and (possibly) for Mailman v3, critical. I use Message IDs as a primary key for my list archives, indexing and several other bits. Changing them, at any point, breaks that.
I confess I was not gazing that far into the future and, not being a Mailman developer, have no influence or knowledge of the architecture of Mailman v3.
This area was discussed on this list extensively a few weeks ago. I suggest reading the archives.
However, offering an immediate fix for an arguably valid criticism of the current stable release that would not have a major destabilizing effect on that stable release seems worthwhile to me.
Fair dinkum, and I've not argued otherwise.
It seems from what you say that your archiving and indexing solution is not standard Mailman internal pipermail archiving so the poor fit of the solution offered with your system is unsurprising.
The archiving system I use is also what I've advocated for Mailman v3, with some level of buy-in.
Bear in mind that the patch only affects the data delivered in response to HTTP requests.
Right, one of the levels I use Message IDs is the user-level, in HTML, in archives, in URLs, and in raw messages. Users regularly quote Message IDs in their messages as text strings ala:
Have a look at message 059F1F1D-227A-11D8-89F4-000A957C9A50@openinfo.co.uk as it goes into this area further and explains several of the bits you are asking about.
-- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
On 29 Nov 2003, at 14:55, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:40:48 +0000 Richard Barrett <r.barrett@openinfo.co.uk> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2003, at 13:32, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:12:45 +0000 Richard Barrett <r.barrett@openinfo.co.uk> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2003, at 00:48, J C Lawrence wrote:
For me, and (possibly) for Mailman v3, critical. I use Message IDs as a primary key for my list archives, indexing and several other bits. Changing them, at any point, breaks that.
I confess I was not gazing that far into the future and, not being a Mailman developer, have no influence or knowledge of the architecture of Mailman v3.
This area was discussed on this list extensively a few weeks ago. I suggest reading the archives.
Hey, I just produced a quick hack and if you do not like the patch then do not use it. If you have not twigged it yet, all of my Mailman patches are to address here and now issues, either bugs or functionality requirements, in the current stable release. Talking of functionality that is months ahead is not my purpose as I know that Mailman developers are not interested in my input about major new releases.
However, offering an immediate fix for an arguably valid criticism of the current stable release that would not have a major destabilizing effect on that stable release seems worthwhile to me.
Fair dinkum, and I've not argued otherwise.
It was square bunkum when I lived in oz. But by pressing on the v3 issues that is precisely what you are doing. The value of this patch is now and maybe acitvating it is only worthwhile for some of the MM user community. The working assumption has to be that any decent major redesign of MM will obsolete it.
It seems from what you say that your archiving and indexing solution is not standard Mailman internal pipermail archiving so the poor fit of the solution offered with your system is unsurprising.
The archiving system I use is also what I've advocated for Mailman v3, with some level of buy-in.
Congratulations. None of my maintained patches for current Mailman stable releases have a place in to Mailman's future but as they meet my current needs I am happy to publish them for users to make their own choice. I'm equally happy to stop if nobody else wants them or when I no longer have need of them myself. Maybe, hopefully, v3 MM will fix certain issues so that I will not have expend effort in the future.
Bear in mind that the patch only affects the data delivered in response to HTTP requests.
Right, one of the levels I use Message IDs is the user-level, in HTML, in archives, in URLs, and in raw messages. Users regularly quote Message IDs in their messages as text strings ala:
Have a look at message 059F1F1D-227A-11D8-89F4-000A957C9A50@openinfo.co.uk as it goes into this area further and explains several of the bits you are asking about.
You really are too clever for me. As I said, if patch doesn't fit do not use it. I do not much care one way or the other. My patch can fester on sourceforge, not being incorporated into Mailman, until it is obsolete and I shall not lose a minutes sleep about that.
-- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
Richard Barrett http://www.openinfo.co.uk
participants (2)
-
J C Lawrence -
Richard Barrett