Mailman 3 March 1999 - Mailman-Users

Mass subscription of users -- random password?
by Paul Barnett March 20, 1999

March 20, 1999

I looked back through the archives, but haven't found anything about this: I did an "mass subscribe" through the /admin/../members web page for a single user (which happened to be me), and started wondering what my password was. Since I didn't specify sending the welcome message, I hadn't received any sort of response. So, I went through the web interface, and asked it to send me my password. I got: g`OM I don't know if this was random characters, or an intentionally generated random password. It did work (and allowed me to change it to something else), but I was wondering if there was an algorithm to come up with a random password... if so, I'd suggest a combination of lower case, upper case, numbers, and MAYBE well known punctuation marks, but only if they not the beginning or end characters. That particular character between the "g" and "O" above is potentially very confusing to a user that doesn't know there is a difference between ` and '

2 1

Re: [Mailman-Users] private archiving problems
by Harald Meland March 20, 1999

March 20, 1999

[Christopher Lindsey] > > first of all, is it okay to use the following apache srm.conf > > aliases for mailman instead of the one it asks for? > > > > Alias /archives/ /home/mailman/archives/public/ > > ScriptAlias /lists/ /home/mailman/cgi-bin/ > > > > (everything seems to work fine with that except the following) > > This isn't going to work (as you already found out) for the > private archives. Well, they could -- and if they weren't it's not necessarily for the reasons you pointed out. On my Mailman, the public archive for a specific list is referenced from the lists "listinfo" page as http://HOSTNAME/pipermail/LISTNAME while lists with private archives have the archive links on the "listinfo" page pointing to http://HOSTNAME/mailman/private/LISTNAME/ This works perfectly fine for me, with these srm.conf directives: Alias /pipermail/ /home/mailman/archives/public/ ScriptAlias /mailman/ /home/mailman/cgi-bin/ The "/mailman/private" part of the private archive URL is taken from the PRIVATE_ARCHIVE_URL setting in Mailman/mm_cfg.py, while "/pipermail" comes from PUBLIC_ARCHIVE_URL. So, this really comes down to how the original posters wants her (or his, I don't know what sex "deadgrrrl" is :) archive URLs to look like. If my URLs look good, my setup is outlined above. If URLs starting with "http://HOSTNAME/archives" are what is wanted (for both private and public archives), then I think the clean solution would be: srm.conf: Alias /archives/ /home/mailman/archives/ Mailman/mm_cfg.py: PUBLIC_ARCHIVE_URL = '/archives/public' PRIVATE_ARCHIVE_URL = '/archives/private' (because I like to reduce the number of srm.conf aliases as much as possible). Either way, what really matters is that the settings in mm_cfg.py and srm.conf correspond to each other in a correct way. -- Harald

2 1

Re: [Mailman-Users] Sending a human message to the LISTNAME-requestaddress.
by Roger Pe?a Escobio March 20, 1999

March 20, 1999

-----Original Message----- From: Dan Delaney <Dionysos(a)Dionysia.org> To: mailman-users(a)python.org <mailman-users(a)python.org> Date: Friday, March 19, 1999 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Sending a human message to the LISTNAME-requestaddress. >Bill wrote: >> I like LISTSERV/ListProc model better, where there is a >> single address for the server, and all list addresses are really >> unique for that list. But I don't know if we're in a position to > >I like that approach as well. But some people like it the other way. >That's one of the nice things about majordomo, it goes both ways (so >to speak :-). If I have a majordomo list called "mylist", the >someone can subscribe one of two ways. They can send a message to >"majordomo(a)mydomain.com" with "subscribe myemail(a)anotherdomain.com" >in the message, or they can send a message to >"mylist-request(a)mydomain.com" with just "subscribe" in the message. >That's awefully nice. Mailman, however, limits the user to >the latter method, making "mailman(a)mydomain.com" go to the Mailman >administrator. I think it would make more sense to just stick with >"mailman-owner(a)mydomain.com", or even add >"mailman-admin(a)mydomain.com" and make "mailman(a)mydomain.com" an >address for sending commands to the user. If this is supposed to >replace majordomo, that's what a lot of majordomo users are used >to. > As far as "mylist-request(a)mydomain.com" goes, I don't see a >problem with that list going to the server. I think "mylist-owner" >is meant for messages to a human. You are sending a "request" to the >server when sending to "mylist-request", and sending a message to >the owner of the list at "mylist-owner". I AGREE WITH YOU, completely, in all that you say > > --Dan thank Dan, you say what i wan to say :-) roger

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Users] Sending a human message to the LISTNAME-requestaddress.
by Roger Peña Escobio March 20, 1999

March 20, 1999

>On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 15:50:24 -0500 (EST), The List Server Administrator at >UNH wrote: >> Chuck Swiger <chuck(a)codefab.com> posted (in part): >> >CS> ListProc uses only one -request address, I think that this is better than >CS> have a lot of -request address (like mailman) all doing (basically) the >CS> same., after all , the list manager is mailman, not the list in question. > >Not guilty! I didn't say that.... :-) sorry , i am the guilty :-))))))))))))) i said that > >-Chuck > > Charles Swiger | chuck(a)codefab.com | Yeah, yeah-- disclaim away. > ----------------+-------------------+---------------------------- > You have come to the end of your journey. Survival is everything.

1 0

Sending a human message to the LISTNAME-request address.
by The List Server Administrator＠UNH March 20, 1999

March 20, 1999

In investigating the differences between Mailman and ListProc, I noticed that the use of the `standard' list aliases are not the same. Specifically Mailman uses the "-request" address for contacting the server, while ListProc uses this address for contacting the list's human admin. Now I've seen different list servers go different ways on this issue. For example I think Majordomo takes the same approach as Mailman where this particular alias is concerned. But ignoring this issue, look at error message I received from the server when I sent my `human message' to the "-request" address (see below). Don't you think it would make sense for the server to include some sort of information on how to get help? If I'm a typical user, all I'll know from this reply is that my message apparently went to a robot, not a person. But know I don't know who I should contact or what I should do for help. While we're talking about error messages, a question. Are the various text strings used for generating error messages and diagnostics sent to users kept separate from the code? I'll briefly mention that I think such a feature is vital. Separating the displayed text from the code allows for much easier internationalization as well as making it easier for different sites to customize the messages as necessary to reflect local policies. Having the error and diagnostic messages hardwired into the server code is probably my number one frustration with ListProc. In that particular case, the supplied error messages are rarely helpful, but there is little that I, as a site admin, can do about it. Of course because the error messages are so bad, I end up handling many more user questions than I probably should have to. (But at least each error message contains a blurb on who to contact for help.) Just my $0.02 USD. Cordially, The List Server Admin list.admin(a)unh.edu (currently Bill Costa) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:52:25 -0500 (EST) From: mailman-users-request(a)python.org To: listadm(a)metaphor.unh.edu Subject: Mailman results for Mailman-Users **** Subject line ignored: This is a test to see what the server will do... >>>> Please excuse this test. It appears that Mailman uses the "-request" **** please: Command UNKNOWN. >>>> version of the list address differently than other servers I have seen. **** version: Command UNKNOWN. >>>> I want to see what will happen if I send a note addressed to a human **** i: Command UNKNOWN. >>>> to this address. **** to: Command UNKNOWN. >>>> Cordially, **** cordially,: Command UNKNOWN. >>>> The List Server Admin **** the: Command UNKNOWN. >>>> list.admin(a)unh.edu **** list.admin(a)unh.edu: Command UNKNOWN. >>>> (currently Bill Costa) **** (currently: Command UNKNOWN.

4 3

Jitterbug for Mailman
by Barry A. Warsaw March 20, 1999

March 20, 1999

Hey folks, sorry I've been so unresponsive lately. Anyway, I have installed Jitterbug on python.org for managing bug reports on Mailman. Hopefully this will work better than trying to use my inbox :-). If Jitterbug works out well, I plan on creating interfaces for other python.org projects. To check out the Jitterbug reporting interface for Mailman, please see http://www.python.org/mailman-bugs Let me know if you have any problems. -Barry

1 0

question
by Alan Neiman March 19, 1999

March 19, 1999

I would like to have our mailing lists 100% controlled by email requests. Is there a way to change the welcome email to still give instructions, but not to refrence the fact they can change things via the web page? Also, is there a way to turn off users passwords, so they don't need one to unsubscribe? thanks Alan Neiman alan.neiman(a)ihs.com Unix System Administrator Information Handling Services -------------------------------------------------------------- ** 1997 & 1998 World Champions ** 17 & 2 -- Simply The Best -- The Broncos -- The Denver Broncos ** 1997 & 1998 World Champions ** --------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: [Mailman-Users] help setting up mailman
by Boris Goldowsky March 19, 1999

March 19, 1999

Roger Peña Escobio diagnosed my problem correctly. Copying the mail/wrapper into /usr/adm/sm.bin solved that problem. However, now I get different errors when I try to subscribe. I entered my email address on the web form to subscribe, received the confirmation message, replied to it, and the answering email I get is included below. I did try setting /opt/mailman/scripts/* to be executable (they were installed with mode 664), but that didn't help. Any clues? Bng The original message was received at Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:23:47 -0500 (EST) from banana.infoplease.com [208.222.166.11] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- "|/usr/adm/sm.bin/mailman-wrapper mailcmd mmtest" (expanded from: <mmtest-request(a)infoplease.com>) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- Traceback (innermost last): File "/opt/mailman/scripts/mailcmd", line 52, in ? list.ParseMailCommands() File "/opt/mailman/Mailman/MailCommandHandler.py", line 162, in ParseMailCommands self._cmd_dispatch[cmd](args, line, mail) File "/opt/mailman/Mailman/MailCommandHandler.py", line 512, in ProcessConfirmCmd self.ProcessConfirmation(cookie) File "/opt/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 874, in ProcessConfirmation got = Pending().confirmed(cookie) File "/opt/mailman/Mailman/Pending.py", line 80, in confirmed db = self.__load() File "/opt/mailman/Mailman/Pending.py", line 94, in __load self.__assert_lock(self.db_lock_timeout) File "/opt/mailman/Mailman/Pending.py", line 120, in __assert_lock self.__lock.lock(timeout) File "/opt/mailman/Mailman/flock.py", line 119, in lock os.link(self.lockfile, self.tmpfname) os.error: (13, 'Permission denied') 554 "|/usr/adm/sm.bin/mailman-wrapper mailcmd mmtest"... unknown mailer error 1 -----Original Message----- From: Roger Peña Escobio [mailto:roger@infomed.sld.cu] Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 3:55 PM To: mailman-u; Boris Goldowsky Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] help setting up mailman -----Original Message----- From: Boris Goldowsky <boris(a)infoplease.com> To: 'mailman-users(a)python.org' <mailman-users(a)python.org> Date: Friday, March 19, 1999 3:33 PM Subject: [Mailman-Users] help setting up mailman >I'm trying to set up mailman to run on a Solaris 2.5.1 system with sendmail >8.9.3. The configure, build, and creation of a test mailing list worked >without errors. > >However, when I send any message that tries to use the wrapper function, I >get the following error in syslog: > >Mar 19 14:43:51 spaceheater sendmail[18681]: OAA18681: > to="|/opt/mailman/mail/wrapper mailowner mmtest", > delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=prog, > stat=Operating system error > make a link to the mailman wrapper programs in the /etc/smrsh dir #ln -s /home/mailman/mail/wrapper wrapper maybe your sendmail need this for run the wrapper programs >Thanks, >Bng > > >------------------------------------------------------ >Mailman-Users maillist - Mailman-Users(a)python.org >http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users

1 0

Site configurable server messages. (was Sending a human message...)
by The List Server Administrator＠UNH March 19, 1999

March 19, 1999

BC = Bill Costa <List.Admin(a)unh.edu> DD = Dan Delaney <Dionysos(a)Dionysia.org> GS = Greg Stein <gstein(a)lyra.org> BC> > > Separating the displayed text from the code allows for much BC> > > easier internationalization as well as making it easier for BC> > > different sites to customize the messages as necessary to BC> > > reflect local policies. DD> > That is an excellent idea. GS> Yah, all great and excellent and whatnot. Somebody has to do it. Either GS> of you could certainly volunteer to submit the patches to do this in the GS> post-1.0 release. I'll go on record that if we adopt Mailman to replace ListProc at this site, I would be more than happy to volunteer to do this. What will it take to come to a consensus that this would indeed be a Good-Thing(tm) to do? Cordially, The List Server Admin list.admin(a)unh.edu (currently Bill Costa)

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Users] Sending a human message to the LISTNAME-request address.
by Roger Pe?a Escobio March 19, 1999

March 19, 1999

-----Original Message----- From: The List Server Administrator at UNH <listadm(a)metaphor.unh.edu> To: mailman-users(a)python.org <mailman-users(a)python.org> Date: Thursday, March 18, 1999 3:53 PM Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sending a human message to the LISTNAME-request address. > In investigating the differences between Mailman and ListProc, I > noticed that the use of the `standard' list aliases are not the same. > Specifically Mailman uses the "-request" address for contacting the > server, while ListProc uses this address for contacting the list's > human admin. > ListProc uses only one -request address, I think that this is better than have a lot of -request address (like mailman) all doing (basically) the same., after all , the list manager is mailman, not the list in question. > Now I've seen different list servers go different ways on this issue. > For example I think Majordomo takes the same approach as Mailman where > this particular alias is concerned. > > But ignoring this issue, look at error message I received from the > server when I sent my `human message' to the "-request" address > (see below). Don't you think it would make sense for the server > to include some sort of information on how to get help? If I'm a > typical user, all I'll know from this reply is that my message > apparently went to a robot, not a person. But know I don't know > who I should contact or what I should do for help. *****-owner(a)xxxx.xxxx.xxx I'm looking one interesting things, how could someone look all the list running on mailman if he dont subscribe to any of them? sending e-mail to where?? suppose that he dont know nothing about mailman and he dont have direct access to internet, so he has only one chance: e-mail command

4 3