Mailman 3 March 2001 - Mailman-Users

RE:Mailman-Users digest, Vol 1 #1115 - 16 msgs
by lcarter1＠cwctv.net April 1, 2001

April 1, 2001

no On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:25:05 -0500 mailman-users-request(a)python.org wrote:

4 3

Re: [Mailman-Users] List configuration options, available now or not?
by J C Lawrence March 31, 2001

March 31, 2001

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:07:11 -0800 JC Dill <mailman(a)vo.cnchost.com> wrote: > On 03:32 PM 3/30/01, J C Lawrence wrote: > So, in other words, it would be trivially easy for someone using > mailman to configure their list to reject a post that said: > Mailman-Users digest, Vol > in the subject (a header), but not so easy to reject a post that > said: > Send Mailman-Users mailing list submissions to > in the body. Yes on both counts. A trivial procmail script or hand written filter can of course make this easy/trivial on both sides.. > <rant>I'm just not sure. I mean, if it's that easy, why hasn't > THIS LIST BEEN CONFIGURED TO DO JUST THAT?????</rant> I've been on the Mailman lists for a couple years now. These last couple attached digests were the first time I've seen a fully quoted digest on the Mailman lists. I've also never seen it on my lists, tho I have on other lists. As such my perceived (and even quantifiable) risk assessment is quite low. > How do I know you aren't misleading me? Install Mailman on a spare system and have a look for yourself. > If it's that easy, certainly this list would have been properly > configured. No. You are making an assumption for which there is little to no supporting logic, especially within your specialised definition of "properly". From a SysAdm level one (typically) does what one considers is necessary and wise. However those are perceived values based on personal judgement, so their actual per case definitions tend to vary quite broadly. > I mean, letting a totally useless subject line stand in a post to > be redistributed to the list is really letting your list > membership down. I do it all the time, deliberately, having determined many years ago that getting list members (or Usenet or RIME/ILink/FIDO/etc members back when) to maintain subject lines was a lost cause. I've taken it off the list of things I'm going to attempt to mandate. To make it more intersting I have several digest members who regularly post replies to an entire digest, individually quoting, trimming and attributing each message withing the digest they are replying to, but leaving the Subject: header of their reply untouched and pointing back to the digest. > IMHO, ever responsible list administrator MUST put in filters to > ensure that posts that are submitted to their subscribers follow > list rules, when filtering for such rules is an easy thing to do. While I generically agree, I look at it as a problem of risks assessment and effort. I'm interested in maximal risk assuagement versus minimal effort. There are a very large, certainly in the mid to high tens of thousands of things I could do with my lists and systems with individually trivial levels of effort that would remove various risks. I have absolute confidence that those tens of thousands of items will remain over the next years, just as they have remained for the past years. The return on the effort required is just not large enough. The risk and the gain is too small, even given the minimal size of the effort required. So from my vantage, yes this is a nice idea, but the perceived risk is very low and the motivation to spend the time and effort to make that configuration across all my lists, and thus assume the burden of documenting and maintaining it over time and upgrades is just not present. Others of course vary, as you do. > A subject like "Subject: Mailman-Users digest, Vol 1 #1115 - 16 > msgs" is clearly a violation of RFC 1855, if not also a violation > of the list's specific rules. Humans rarely have a strong interest in abiding by such rules, and in my specific case of the multiple replies within a single message, my appeals to split them out into individual messages fall on ears (few current MUAs support digest bursting) and it is considerable extra work for them. As it happens this really bugs me as the list archives are a major value and research resource for the field and such collapsed messages fail to participate fully in that that value. > It really should be an automatic feature of the mailing list > software, whenever you add a digest. List owners shouldn't have > to do anything to trigger this, and the default behavior should be > to bounce the non-compliant post back to the author with an > explanation about why it's being automatically rejected (just as > bounced mail gets sent back with a reason when the MTA can't > deliver it). Mailman is currently missing the ability to define filters which result in the automatic dropping or rejection of matching mail. Instead they are all held in the moderation interface. This is unfortunate, and there is considerable interest in changing it. However, nobody has as yet been sufficiently motivated to submit a patch for the feature. Now, outside of that, yes, I agree that it is reasonable for the default set of regexes to be extended with patterns that also match digests. Given that the current defaults are: # Lines that *start* with a '#' are comments. to: friend(a)public.com message-id: relay.comanche.denmark.eu from: list(a)listme.com from: .*(a)uplinkpro.com indicating that the structure to support such defaults is already present, this seems a pretty minimal effort problem. > Bingo, no more problems with digest users forgetting their manners > and sending entire digests back to the list, all using the useless > (to the other list members) digest subject line. When may we expect your patch? -- J C Lawrence claw(a)kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ --=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Users] trim/cut/delete (was RE:Mailman-Users digest, Vol 1 #1115 - 16 msgs)
by J C Lawrence March 31, 2001

March 31, 2001

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:10:34 -0800 JC Dill <mailman(a)vo.cnchost.com> wrote: > On 06:00 AM 3/31/01, Menega Sabidussi wrote: >> [lcarter1(a)cwctv.net wrote:] >>> no >> followed by the complete digest, Vol 1 #1115 - 16 msgs. >> >> was this a demonstration that blocking completely quoted digests >> does *not* work > Is there an option to block completely quoted digests? That would > be sweet! The compleat digest was not quoted. Instead it was attached as a message/RFC822 MIME part. -- J C Lawrence claw(a)kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ --=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--

1 0

a subdomain for each list
by josh＠ssimr.com March 31, 2001

March 31, 2001

I want to create each list so that it is its own subdomain. So in setting up the test list, while I now have http://www.ssimr.com/mailman/listinfo/test and what I want is the web interface to be its own domail. I'd like this to happen whenever I create a list. http://test.ssimr.com/ -- Josh Kuperman josh(a)ssimr.com http://www.ssimr.com

1 0

malaria mailing list
by Given March 31, 2001

March 31, 2001

I can't tell, from your website, how to sign on to mailing list. Nor do I understand why I am directed to the software for list managers, etc. Do I need your software to be on a Mailman mailing list? Yours for the possibility of perfect health and affinity for all people through complete loving-acceptance of self and others.

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Users] Wish List
by Mitchell Marks March 31, 2001

March 31, 2001

At 06:56 AM 3/31/01, mailman-users-request(a)python.org wrote: >From: "Robert V. MacQuarrie" <robert(a)provision.net> >To: Phydeaux <reb(a)taco.com> >cc: mailman-users(a)python.org >Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Wish List >I >These are very small discussion lists with perhaps 20 to 30 members. One >of the policies regarding membership is that what gets discussed on these >lists are not to be discussed with non-members and is grounds for >immediate removal. The first rule of Fight Club ... -- Mitchell Marks CUIP Tech Coordinator http://cuip.uchicago.edu CUIP: Chicago Public Schools / Univ. of Chicago Internet Project 5640 S Ellis Ave AAC-045, Univ of Chgo, Chgo IL 60637 [Homer goes to Honest John's Computers store.] Homer: I just need something to receive e-mail. Salesman: [Whistles in surprise.] You'll need a top-of-the-line machine for that! The Simpsons, 2001

1 0

(no subject)
by jean michel guiraud March 31, 2001

March 31, 2001

i have found a source via-rhine.c on your server but i don t see the header file via-rhine.h included thank you for your answer

1 0

upgrading sendmail broke mailman
by Chris Murray March 31, 2001

March 31, 2001

I just upgraded my list server from sendmail 8.9.3 to sendmail 8.11.3 and now I am getting errors from smrsh about wrapper not available for sendmail programs. smrsh: wrapper not available for sendmail programs 554 5.0.0 "|/home/mailman/mail/wrapper post listname" .... any ideas what I should look at to fix this? I have compiled into my cf support for smrsh and have a link in /etc/smrsh to /home/mailman/mail/wrapper Thanks - Chris ====================================== Chris Murray Network Services Specialist cmurray(a)stargate.ca Ph: 604-606-8988 Fax: 604-606-8998 Stargate Connections, Inc. http://www.stargate.ca/ ======================================

2 1

Mailman & qmail sporadic message loss
by ii＠cipete.ekilat.com March 31, 2001

March 31, 2001

I run a set of mailing lists using mailman and qmail. I've got the lists set up fine, everything is running smoothly, except that sometimes people complain that they didn't receive a particluar message, while others have received it. It has happened on more than one list, and with different members, so I think mailman is suspect. I've looked in the qmail and mailman logs but haven't been able to pick up any errors. I've searched google, read the docs, and skimmed the last 3 motnhs of this mailing list with no luck. Has anyone ever seen a problem like this, or can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks. I'm running Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 - here are my versions: ii@host:~$ uname -a Linux host 2.2.14-va.4.4-i586 #1 Tue Sep 5 15:18:51 PDT 2000 i686 unknown ii@host:~$ dpkg -l | pgrep '(mailman)|(qmail)|(python)|(apache)' ii apache 1.3.14-2 Versatile, high-performance HTTP server ii apache-common 1.3.14-2 Support files for all Apache webservers ii libapache-mod- 2.7.1-1 Strong cryptography for Apache ii libapache-mod- 2.7.1-1 Documentation for Apache module mod_ssl ii mailman 2.0final-1 Powerful, web based list processor ii python-base 1.5.2-10 An interactive object-oriented scripting lan ii python-zlib 1.5.2-10 A compression module for Python using zlib. ii qmail 1.03-14 Secure, reliable, efficient, simple mail tra ii qmail-src 1.03-14 Source only package for building qmail binar

1 0

Re: [Mailman-Users] Personal Trainer
by J C Lawrence March 31, 2001

March 31, 2001

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:11:58 -0800 chuq von rospach <chuqui(a)plaidworks.com> wrote: > On Friday, March 30, 2001, at 11:05 AM, Ron Echeverri wrote: >> I disagree. Since we can't control spammers, perhaps we should >> simply control ourselves, and instead of complaining about the >> spam, we should simply delete it. I > If you go home at night and smell gas, do you solve the problem by > deciding to smoke outside from now on? Or do you call a repairman > to fix the gas leak? Without questioning the boundaries of topic or religion on this one, there's also the argument that allowing spammers to control and alter our behaviour, and thereby granting them that power and influence over us is fundamentally WRONG and that doing so is tantamount to kowtowing to terrorists. -- J C Lawrence claw(a)kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ --=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--

3 2