I want all mails sent to the list to come from the list's email address...
But, in this case, if the user forgets to sign their name at the
bottom of their mail body, effectively the mail to the list is
Is there a way to add the user name (or email address) to the top of
each mail so that the mails have the name of the sender, while the
mail itself comes from the list address?
I have looked high and low for an answer, but noone seems to have the solution.
I received the following error this morning. So I rerun configure again with the following command: ./configure --with-cgi-id=apache --prefix=/var/mailman. I'm still getting the same error. Is there any place that I can look for so that I can debug this problem better? Perhaps, looking at the config history file or something. Any other places that I can check the cause of this error?
"Mailman CGI error!!!
The Mailman CGI wrapper encountered a fatal error. This entry is being stored in your syslog:
Group mismatch error. Mailman expected the CGI
wrapper script to be executed as group "nobody", but
the system's web server executed the CGI script as
group "apache". Try tweaking the web server to run the
script as group "nobody", or re-run configure,
providing the command line option `--with-cgi-gid=apache'."
we recently updated our (vhost patched) Mailman installation
from 2.1.14 to 2.1.18-1 (https://launchpad.net/~msapiro) in order to
workaround Yahoo's recent change to their SPF policy that this
version addresses. Virtual mailing list hosting worked fine up until
Here is an example of our mm_cfg.py :
DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST = 'list.ourdomain.com'
DEFAULT_URL_HOST = 'list.ourdomain.com'
DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN = 'http://%s/mailman/'
VIRTUAL_HOST_OVERVIEW = On
If we change the default values above and run the below command, the
available mailing lists move from the old default to the new.
bin/withlist -l -a -r fix_url --
All add_virtualhost configuration lines are ignored.
Since withlist is able to read the changes in our mm_cfg.py, this
does not strike me as an issue with our configure options which were
I am unaware of a method we can use to further debug this, such as a
command that would effectively dump out Mailman's configuration
options, thus validating if it is even reading the add_virtualhost
President - Rocket Scientist
On 05/10/2013 06:35 AM, Xie, Wei wrote:
> Here we have one customer to request migrating all old archived files of
> mailing list ‘kinejapan’ under directory
> /usr/local/mailman/archives/private/kinejapan prior to 2009 (as attached
> file) to Yale university. Yale university IT guys needs us to create a
> mbox file for these old archived file to be easy for them to run
> command ‘archdo migration.
> I check there is no file kinejapan.mbox under directory
> /usr/local/mailman/archives/private/kinejapan.mbox to match these old
> archived files as attached. This mailing list was maintained by our
> pre-mailman admin, who passed away 2011, so I do not know why the mbox
> file was missing.
If ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX is set to 0 in mm_cfg.py, Mailman will not
create/update LISTNAME.mbox/LISTNAME.mbox files.
> Do you know whether there is a tool/method to convert these old archived
> files/directories as attached into a mbox file?
Lots of information is lost if there is no .mbox file.
You can do as well as anything with
cat /usr/local/mailman/archives/private/kinejapan/*.txt > kinejapan.mbox
Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Bug in Mailman version 2.1.15
We're sorry, we hit a bug!
Please inform the webmaster for this site of this problem. Printing of
traceback and other system information has been explicitly inhibited, but the
webmaster can find this information in the Mailman error logs.
The above message shows up on the web pages, unfortunately the last log written
to is qrunner, error is empty, so no info on what it is about.
The last thing changed is the adres of the main pages.
It looks like the mail-system is not affected, any idea what is going on?
Would like to show some logging, but it simply is not there.
Linux-User #469851 with the Linux Counter; http://linuxcounter.net/
Antw.: Omdat het de volgorde verstoord waarin mensen tekst lezen.
Vraag: Waarom is top-posting een slechte gewoonte?
Vraag: Wat is het meest ergerlijke in e-mail?
Why be difficult, when with a bit of effort, you can be impossible?
I run a mailman system for a number of mailing lists. Recently I've
noticed that a number of our pages aren't fully translated, when I think
they probably should be. The server is a Debian 7.2 (wheezy) server and
Mailman is 2.1.15. Python is 2.7.3, if that's of any use. There's
nothing obvious in the 'error' log in /var/log/mailman. Any other logs I
As an example:
You can see that the top is in English and the bottom is in Portugese
Can anyone give me any useful pointers as to what can be done to fix? My
google-fu has rather failed me on this one.
Open Knowledge - www.okfn.org
Skype - notmatt
Hello friends of Mailman, and Happy New Year!
You can roll that stone
To the top of the hill
Drag your ball and chain behind you
Once again, it's time for the traditional "avoid the copyright year bump"
release. I'm happy to announce the fifth beta release of Mailman 3.0 core,
code named "Carve Away The Stone".
We're really quite close now, but this release is a little different. Those
of you who follow the proceedings on the mailman-developers mailing list will
note that I have ported the core engine to Python 3.4. While it is my intent
to release Mailman 3.0 core[*] final as a Python 3 application, some of the
details are still be hashed out on the mailing list, and in the code base.
For this reason, I am releasing two "flavors" of 3.0b5:
* "A" release, which remains on Python 2.7
* "B" release, which is only compatible with Python 3.4
The A and B releases are functionally equivalent. There may be different bugs
in them, but they both implement the exact same feature set, with the only
difference being the version of Python they are compatible with. Some time
early in 2015, I will be merging the Python 3 branch back into trunk, and
dropping Python 2 support.
I would encourage you to download the "B" release and try it out. If you do
try both, please submit bugs for any functional differences you encounter.
You can download GNU Mailman 3.0b5 core (both "A" and "B" releases) from the
The documentation is available online at:
Mailman 3.0 is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License
version 3 or later.
Detailed changes in 3.0b5 are available here:
Bugs can be reported here:
Special thanks go to Abhilash Raj and Aurélien Bompard, who implemented the
conversion of the ORM layer from Storm to SQLAlchemy and Alembic. Thanks also
to Kurt Griffiths for his excellent Falcon Framework package, which now
replaces restish as our WSGI-compatible REST layer. Both of these changes
were critical in allowing me to port the core to Python 3.
Enjoy, and Happy New Year.
[*] Postorious and HyperKitty will port to Python 3 on their own time
schedule, and may remain Python 2 applications for the final release of the
GNU Mailman Suite. mailman.client, the standalone REST client will be a
bilingual library, supporting both Python 2 and Python 3.
I hope you had a good Christmas with friends and family.
We developed custom subscription pages for the mailing lists supported by
our website. Although these pages show on our SERP listings, so do the
Info Pages provided by Mailman. Please try the following search query on
Google and you will see what I mean:
This is confusing for our users so I would like to hide all the pages
containing "mailman" and "pipermail" from the SERP listings.
I read the archives of this list and found a couple of entries. The answer
seems to be including "Disallows" in our robots.txt file. I did this as
you can see here -- towards the bottom of the file:
This has been in place for four weeks so I do not believe it is working. I
believe this problem is there needs to be a robots.txt file for each
subdomain. In this case, mailman lives in the lists.raystedman.org
subdomain. Is there a way to have a robots.txt file for the
Thanks in advance for your assistance! Greg
Some of my Yahoo subscribers are reporting that emails from my mailing
list are being flagged as spam. As far as I can tell, I'm not using
spammy words, and the emails are plain text not HTML. I have SPF set up.
One of the Yahoo subscribers kindly forwarded me the full headers and I
can see these which appear relevant:
pass (domain of pearwood.info designates 188.8.131.52 as
mta1310.mail.bf1.yahoo.com from=pearwood.info; domainkeys=neutral
(no sig); from=pearwood.info; dkim=neutral (no sig)
Googling suggests that nobody except Cisco can decipher the
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam header, and they refuse to tell even their
customers what it means, let alone people like me.
Can anyone suggest something I can do to convince Yahoo I'm not sending
Back in September, I migrated an announcement-only mailing list from
Yahoo to mailman, with approximately 1800 email addresses. An unknown
number of these were dead.
The mailing list I am running sends out one, maybe two, emails a month,
at around the same time of the month. It's not a discussion list, so
there are no replies from subscribers.
I expected that the first month, there would be a lot of automatic
unsubscriptions, as the dead addresses were noted and removed, and then
in subsequent months there might only be a trickle of automatic
removals. To my surprise though, there has been a steady pattern of mass
unsubscriptions each month, around 100-200 each month following the
I'm not sure whether this is normal (if it is, unless the number of
unsubscriptions begins to fall soon, I'll soon be left with no
subscribers) or whether I'm doing something wrong.
Here are my bounce processing settings:
bounce_processing = Yes
bounce_score_threshold = 4.0
bounce_info_stale_after = 65
bounce_you_are_disabled_warnings = 3
bounce_you_are_disabled_warnings_interval = 10
Remembering that I only send out 1 or 2 emails every 30 days (give or
take a couple of days in either direction), does this seem reasonable?
Or is my bounce processing too strict?
Thanks in advance,