Hey there all,
Due to a VERP misconfig on one of our systems, we had a number of outbound
posts bounce with a 500-series error.
What we'd like to do is go through the archives for the period of time we
missed, and re-send those messages. Is this something anyone's had to do
in the past and could maybe provide pointers?
Failing that, can someone tell me why it might be a really bad idea?
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
I’ve been poking around the Mailman options (that I have access to… I am using a hosted Mailman 2.1.14) and brainstorming - would it be possible, using the options in the “Non-digest options” page, to munge the “From:” header of Yahoo/AOL posters to change their address to something like smith(a)aol-removethis.com? I don’t know enough python to answer this.
Loose talk is noose talk. Be a live patriot, not a dead traitor.
I have been reading these posts and your
and since in our list, we moderate every post, we did not
have too much concern about having moderators re-post yahoo messages. Then
the news that AOL is joining the DMARC party got me worrying that soon the
big players, gmail, hotmail, etc may also decide to implement DMARC for
messages coming from their users.
To prepare for that possibility, I have been testing one of the solutions,
anonymous_list. In my test environment, it passes a yahoo post to my gmail
account without a problem since "from" is our list's address, so it
matches. The problem is identifying the poster in some way in the message
body. I added a msg_header with "user_address" and text, but that returns
the recipient's email address, not the sender's. The moderators see the
sender's email address, but it is not passed to the recipient by design, I
know. That is what anonymous is for. Currently, moderators cannot directly
edit pending posts.
My question then is what variable would return the sender's address in the
msg_header? If there is no variable, then how could we do that? Some of our
posters carry more credibility than others.
We are on version 2.1.13, with full personalization set, and using SPF and
DKIM. anonymous_list currently set to "no" in our production environment.
I was logged-into Mailman as a moderator and just hit the error message
"Bug in Mailman version 2.1.12 - We're sorry, we hit a bug! "
The latter was generated when approving a moderated post and concomitantly
selecting "Preserve message for the Administrator" - see all the details
When returning to the approval form screen (back arrow in the navigator) ,
this time I only approved the post without selecting the "Preserve message
for the Administrator" check button. This led to a screen indicating that
the approval procedure resumed. As moderator, I later received a copy of
the post indicating that sections of it were filtered out, according the
rules enforced in the admin section .
Would anyone have an idea about the related problem and possible workaround
Thanks for your help - Regards.
Bug in Mailman version 2.1.12
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
Here is a corresponding excerpt of the Mailman Error Log
Apr 24 22:46:22 2014 admin(10087):
admin(10087): [----- Mailman Version: 2.1.12 -----]
admin(10087): [----- Traceback ------]
admin(10087): Traceback (most recent call last):
admin(10087): File "/usr/lib/mailman/scripts/driver", line 112, in
admin(10087): File "/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/admindb.py", line 165, in
admin(10087): process_form(mlist, doc, cgidata)
admin(10087): File "/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/admindb.py", line 716, in
admin(10087): forward, forwardaddr)
admin(10087): File "/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/ListAdmin.py", line 167, in
admin(10087): forward, addr)
admin(10087): File "/usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/ListAdmin.py", line 254, in
admin(10087): g(msg, 1)
admin(10087): AttributeError: Generator instance has no __call__ method
admin(10087): [----- Python Information -----]
admin(10087): sys.version = 2.6.6 (r266:84292, Jan 22 2014, 09:42:36)
[GCC 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-4)]
admin(10087): sys.executable = /usr/bin/python
admin(10087): sys.prefix = /usr
admin(10087): sys.exec_prefix = /usr
admin(10087): sys.path = /usr
admin(10087): sys.platform = linux2
admin(10087): [----- Environment Variables -----]
admin(10087): SERVER_SOFTWARE: Apache
admin(10087): SCRIPT_NAME: /mailman/admindb
admin(10087): REQUEST_METHOD: POST
admin(10087): PATH_INFO: /lablist
admin(10087): SERVER_PROTOCOL: HTTP/1.1
admin(10087): SSL_TLS_SNI: lists.domain.org
admin(10087): CONTENT_LENGTH: 169
admin(10087): HTTP_USER_AGENT: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko
admin(10087): HTTP_CONNECTION: Keep-Alive
admin(10087): HTTP_COOKIE: lablist+admin=; mailman+admin=;
admin(10087): SERVER_NAME: lists.domain.org
admin(10087): REMOTE_ADDR: 126.96.36.199
admin(10087): PATH_TRANSLATED: /home/ovh/www/lablist
admin(10087): SERVER_PORT: 443
admin(10087): SERVER_ADDR: 188.8.131.52
admin(10087): DOCUMENT_ROOT: /home/ovh/www
admin(10087): PYTHONPATH: /usr/lib/mailman
admin(10087): SCRIPT_FILENAME: /usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin/admindb
admin(10087): SERVER_ADMIN: postmaster(a)vps59845.ovh.net
admin(10087): HTTP_DNT: 1
admin(10087): HTTP_HOST: lists.domain.org
admin(10087): HTTPS: on
admin(10087): HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL: no-cache
admin(10087): REQUEST_URI: /mailman/admindb/lablist
admin(10087): HTTP_ACCEPT: text/html, application/xhtml+xml, */*
admin(10087): GATEWAY_INTERFACE: CGI/1.1
admin(10087): REMOTE_PORT: 52302
admin(10087): HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE: fr-FR
admin(10087): CONTENT_TYPE: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
admin(10087): HTTP_ACCEPT_ENCODING: gzip, deflate
We have one list where the moderator daily receives moderation requests for
the same 4 messages from 3 months ago. They have already been moderated
(discarded) months ago.
Is this a known issue? Is there a solution?
(mailman v 2.1.9)
I'm afraid I'm not much of a Python programmer so I will post this as a
suggestion and hope it's easy enough to do so that someone will pick it up.
(Or should I post it to the developers' list? I don't subscribe to it
though so I'm not familiar with the culture there.)
I've just upgraded cPanel to take advantage of Mailman 2.1.17's
"from_is_list" feature and it works great except for one thing.
If the poster has not filled out the "name" field in his/her MUA (i.e., if
the From field says just "email(a)example.com" instead of "Your Name Here <
email(a)example.com>"), then the munged From field reads "via Listname"
instead of "Your Name Here via Listname."
If I'm reading the code right, it looks as if the munging occurs at line
132 of CookHeders.py:
formataddr(('%s via %s' % (realname, mlist.real_name),
I'd like to make a humble feature request as follows:
1. Check whether the From field has a name and email address or just an
email address (i.e., whether "realname" is an empty string).
2. If it has a name and email address, go ahead and munge it as it is done
formataddr(('%s via %s' % (realname, mlist.real_name),
3. If there is only an email address, have it use the email address (or
maybe just the local part?) instead:
formataddr(('%s via %s' % (email, mlist.real_name),
The "realname" and "email" variables appear to come from line 120:
realname, email = parseaddr(msg['from'])
Does that sound reasonable?
This would be useful to me because I'm using Drupal (Mailhandler and Feeds)
to archive some lists and I populate the "Submitted by" line with the From
field. So whereas it usually says "Submitted by Your Name Here via
Listname," it just says "Submitted by via Listname" if the user didn't fill
out the MUA's name field.