Mailman-Users January 2018

mailman-users@python.org

33 participants
29 discussions

Re: [Mailman-Users] Automate Moderator Functions
by Andre de Azevedo Cunha 18 Apr '22

18 Apr '22

Hi, i`m trying to reject messages bigger then MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE. I configured my Hold.py was described bellow: replaced hold_for_approval(mlist, msg, msgdata, _ MessageTooBig(bodylen,_mlist.max_message_size)) with rej = MessageTooBig(bodylen, mlist.max_message_size) _ raise Errors.RejectMessage, rej.reason_notice_ The message was rejected, but the sender dont receive any notify about that. The mailman vette log too. How can i solve this? Thanks, André Dennis Putnam wrote: > >I am getting back to this and I have a question about maintenance. What >is the correct way to modify this so that it will not get destroyed by >updates? There are two ways to proceed. You can modify Mailman/Handlers/Hold.py itself, but before overwriting it, make a "diff -u" between the base Hold.py and your modified version to use as a patch to apply after any upgrade. A better way is to leave Hold.py unchanged and make your own edited version as say Mailman/Handlers/MyHold.py. Then you can replace the base Hold.py Module with your MyHold.py by putting GLOBAL_PIPELINE[GLOBAL_PIPELINE.index('Hold')] = 'MyHold' in mm_cfg.py. Note that if you are going to do this, and you want also to move MimeDel before Hold, you must either put the above line after the lines GLOBAL_PIPELINE.remove('MimeDel') GLOBAL_PIPELINE.insert(GLOBAL_PIPELINE.index('Hold'), 'MimeDel') in mm_cfg.py or put it before, but then also change GLOBAL_PIPELINE.insert(GLOBAL_PIPELINE.index('Hold'), 'MimeDel') to GLOBAL_PIPELINE.insert(GLOBAL_PIPELINE.index('MyHold'), 'MimeDel') I recommend the former as in # # Put MimeDel ahead of Hold so "too big" is based on content filtered # message. # GLOBAL_PIPELINE.remove('MimeDel') GLOBAL_PIPELINE.insert(GLOBAL_PIPELINE.index('Hold'), 'MimeDel') # # Replace Hold with local version # GLOBAL_PIPELINE[GLOBAL_PIPELINE.index('Hold')] = 'MyHold' Since mm_cfg.py survives upgrades, this should survive. >Also does this same procedure apply to other automatic rejections such >as implicit destination? >On 9/24/2012 8:43 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: >> >> To automatically reject or discard messages that exceed the list's size >> limit, find the section of the Mailman/Handlers/Hold.py that ends with >> the lines >> >> >> if bodylen/1024.0 > mlist.max_message_size: >> hold_for_approval(mlist, msg, msgdata, >> MessageTooBig(bodylen, >> mlist.max_message_size)) >> # no return >> >> (there is one wrapped line in the above) and replace >> >> hold_for_approval(mlist, msg, msgdata, >> MessageTooBig(bodylen, >> mlist.max_message_size)) >> >> with >> >> rej = MessageTooBig(bodylen, mlist.max_message_size)) >> raise Errors.RejectMessage, rej.reason_notice >> >> to reject the message or with >> >> raise Errors.DiscardMessage >> >> to discard the message. Note that this will not honor the list's >> forward_auto_discards setting. to do that you would need to put >> >> from Mailman.Handlers.Moderate import do_discard >> >> with the other imports near the beginning of the >> Mailman.Handlers.hold.py module and then replace the lines with >> >> do_discard(mlist, msg) Yes, similar changes would apply to other holds in Hold.py. -- Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net [1]> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan -- Links: ------ [1] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users

2 11

Add "sender's name/email" to BODY of mail as header?
by Mal 17 Feb '21

17 Feb '21

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 anonymous...! 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. Thank you! Mal

9 14

Mailman CGI Error-Group mismatch error
by Wang, Mary Y 10 Sep '20

10 Sep '20

Hi, 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'." Thanks Mary

3 3

Find a smtp server to send out emails
by Leon 20 Mar '20

20 Mar '20

Hi, This problem is not caused by mailman, but I still want to give it a shot here. I'm hosting a mailing list on top of mailman. Emails are supposed to be sent out by AWS ses. However, ses requires that sender address must be verified, which leads to a problem that emails sent by subscribers to mailing list cannot be sent to other subcirbers, since their addresses are not verified. And it is impossible to verified every subscriber. Are there smtp service providers allowing unverified email address to send out emails, or do I have other solutions? Thanks. Leon

7 7

Debugging mass invitations using web page interface...
by The Mailing List Server Admin 05 Sep '19

05 Sep '19

Dear Mailman Cognoscenti, I'm helping one of my list owners send out 5K plus invitations to students to subscribe to his mailing list. Our current configuration: Mailman v2.1.20 RHEL v5.11 Semdmail v8.13.8 Apache v2.2.3 Since this was the first time doing this, I suggested breaking the batch input into 3 groups, 50, 500, and the rest. The 50 went fine, as did the 500, but the largest batch gave him a generic web server error: > Internal Server Error > > The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was > unable to complete your request. > > Please contact the server administrator, root(a)conundrum.unh.edu and > inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might > have done that may have caused the error. > > More information about this error may be available in the server > error log. I looked at the logs and I couldn't find anything that hinted at what went wrong. So I asked the owner to send me the last back and I'd give it a try. I wrote a script that removed folks already subscribed to his list and split the remaining subscribers up into 6 files with a thousand records each. I just tried uploading the 1st batch of 1K, with the following options: Subscribe these users now... (*) Invite Send welcome message... (*) No Send notifications... (*) No And entered a 7 line paragraph explaining the invitation. I ended up having the same error happen. Looking at the Mailman logs, I can't see any difference before or after my submission. In the HTTPD logs, I see: >> [Fri Aug 26 19:59:23 2016] [warn] [client 132.177.215.132] Timeout >> waiting for output from CGI script >> /usr/local/mailman/cgi-bin/admin, referer: >> https://lists.unh.edu/mailman/admin/campus.connection/members/add >> [Fri Aug 26 19:59:23 2016] [error] [client 132.177.215.132] >> Premature end of script headers: admin, referer: >> https://lists.unh.edu/mailman/admin/campus.connection/members/add So is there an inherent limit to the number of invites that can be submitted via the web form? As a work around, how would I do large invites on behalf of the owner from the command line, including the 'extra text' that is allowed via the web interface? -- Cordially, the UNH Mailing List Server Admins Bill Costa, senior admin (603) 862-3056

2 7

changing domains on Mailman implementation
by Keith Seyffarth 20 Sep '18

20 Sep '18

Is there an efficient way to change the domain name that mailman is affiliated with? I have two mailing lists that were created for an organization before that organization had their own domain. At the time the organization was sure they did not want their own domain and would not be getting a domain. Since then, they have chosen to get a domain and set up a web site. I would like to move their mailing lists onto their domain. It looks like the process for this is: 1) get the list of subscribers 2) delete the mailing list from the one domain (losing the archives) 3) create the mailing list on the new domain 4) subscribe the list of subscribers This process doesn't seem too difficult, but I would prefer to keep the archives, if possible. Both domains are on the same server, running CentOS7 and PLESK 12.5, if that makes a difference. Thanks, Keith

2 2

spam discard expressions
by Jim Dory 08 Mar '18

08 Mar '18

Apparently our host provider performs spam tests only on outgoing, rather than incoming - since my spamassassin blacklists don't have any effect. So I've discovered the filters offered in Mailman after being completely buried by spammers trying to post to our subscriber only list. I've started putting these in Sender Filters: ^[^@]+@bcira\.com$ ^[^@]+@airablo\.com$ ^[^@]+@bfklaw\.com$ ^[^@]+@bettella\.com$ ^[^@]+@areallycool\.com$ ^[^@]+@aristo-tec\.com$ ^[^@]+@benallgood\.com$ ^[^@]+@al-meshkah\.com$ ^[^@]+@atoccs\.stream$ ^[^@]+@authors\.com$ ^[^@]+@aulson\.com$ ^[^@]+@atmyx\.bid$ ^[^@]+@airtecperforms\.com$ but what is the syntax for blocking domains ending in .loan .stream .trade etc, other than .com. I've been reading up on python expressions but at first reading it is a bit overwhelming - hoping for a simple example. I've also started adding in words under Spam filters such as: ^Subject: .*Phentermine ^Subject: .*F\*buddy ^Subject: .*H00kup ^Subject: .*InstaF\*ck ^Subject: .*Instacheat Wondering if anyone would care to share their lists of filters - or a good resource? thanks, Jim

6 10

MM3 book in the works
by Tom Browder 09 Feb '18

09 Feb '18

I would love to see a new book on MM3. Anyone know of such a project proposed or in the works? FWIW, the new Perl 6 world (see https://perl6.org) has produced several books in the last year and some were started via various “fund me” websites. Best regards, -Tom

4 5

Reply-to options not working
by Hal 06 Feb '18

06 Feb '18

I'm a little confused about the "reply-to" setting as I was pretty sure I had set my list up so that all replies by default go back to the list, but for some reason a reply goes directly to the sender. I had "reply_goes_to_list" set to "this list" along with the list's posting address set for the "reply_to_adress". Since this didn't work and I tried to read the details/help for the Mailman web-interface but can't seem to figure this out. I did change the "reply_goes_to_list" setting to "Explicit address" but that didn't appear to change anything. I'm on Mailman 2.1.12. Hal

8 34

Re: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working
by Grant Taylor 06 Feb '18

06 Feb '18

On 01/24/2018 10:40 AM, Jordan Brown wrote: > On 1/24/2018 12:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply": >> >> 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To. >> 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. >> 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the >> message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.) >> >> Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this >> is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are >> some issues with this algorithm in practice: > > If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the result > that I would want. I would want Reply to go to the author. As a list > member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to the > author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs Reply to > the list. (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I was > participating in for this reason.) I think that the difference of Reply vs Reply-List applies to your statement. You are entitled to your opinion of how a mailing list should operate and free to configure any mailing lists you manage accordingly. I prefer that discussion mailing lists direct replies to the mailing list so that other subscribers are aware of and can participate in the discussions. > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author, > the list, and any other To or CC destinations. I simply can't > understand any other answer. I don't understand why anybody feels a > need for "Reply List". Lack of understanding does not mean that other ways are invalid. See my comment above for why I want replies to my message to /discussion/ lists to go to the list. In fact, I really dislike receiving the CC when messages are going to the list that I'm subscribed to. > How that translates into headers that the mailing list software > generates, shrug. Yes, the mailing list software could always force in > a Reply-To: <author> to get the semantics that I want, but why should it > add that noise? Or the mailing list software could omit List-Post, > which I suppose would be fine too (since I don't understand why you > would want it). I thought the List-Post: header was more informational about how to post messages to the mailing list. - I thought MUAs started offering an option to use the List-Post header to purposefully send replies to the list instead of the author (From:|Reply-To:). > Before DMARC munging, I could have (mis)configured my MUA to ignore > Reply-To and mostly gotten the right semantics even on an evil > Reply-To:<list> list. With DMARC munging that's no longer an option; I > need Reply-To: <author> on DMARC-munged lists. How can you tell the difference between me setting the Reply-To: to be the Mailman Users mailing list (which I have done for this email) and the mailing list manager doing it? What do you do in these cases? Not sending the reply to the list is contrary to my desires (evident by me setting the Reply-To:) or the mailing list owners desires if they choose to munge the reply. And yes, the mailing list is going to munge the From for DMARC reasons. -- Grant. . . . unix || die

6 21