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'."
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?
This is a weird one. I think of myself as knowing my way around Mailman
pretty well for a user/admin/installer/upgrader. I'm upgrading to a
Debian 9 system from CentOS 6.5. Debian's Apache configs took a bit of
getting used to, but I actually like them better. It uses Apache 2.4.2.
I wanted to install Mailman from source, since the latest version is
2.1.26, Debian has 2.1.23, and IIRC that's too old to have some screen
reader optimizations I want. So I built, installed, all working well. I
copied over the Mailman config from my CentOS system to use in Apache,
making some changes so it'd work under 2.4.2. Here it is:
# httpd configuration settings for use with mailman.
ScriptAlias /mailman/ /usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin/
Require all granted
Alias /pipermail/ /var/lib/mailman/archives/public/
Options Indexes MultiViews FollowSymLinks
Require all granted
# Uncomment the following line, to redirect queries to /mailman to the
# listinfo page (recommended).
# RedirectMatch ^/mailman[/]*$ /mailman/listinfo
The problem is that the CGI isn't working. If I go to
http://temphostname/mailman/listinfo/mailman for example, Apache says
/usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/mailman doesn't exist. If I just go to
/mailman/listinfo I get an Elf binary thrown at me, rather than the page
saying there are no advertised lists. If I do the same thing from the
server using the Lynx web browser, I get the same binary thrown at me,
with a page title, "Mailman CGI error!" It sounds to me like Apache
2.4.2 isn't seeing that /usr/lib/mailman/cgi-bin is, in fact, CGI
scripts, and is trying to treat them like regular files. Has something
else changed between Apache versions?
i just did make one vm instance Ubuntu 18.04 on google compute
engine. barely i did install postfix at there. hmm if possible, i wish
to run mailing service for my family and me -- it needs a little bit some comunication plus some
records about family history. yes i want GNU Mailman very
much!!! google compute engine blocked port 25 by default. in this case i
can run mailman with other port (example 625)? again question, Mailman
can act with 625 or 1625 or 2625, ...?
Sincerely, Byung-Hee from South Korea.
^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//
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:
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
> 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 188.8.131.52] Timeout
>> waiting for output from CGI script
>> /usr/local/mailman/cgi-bin/admin, referer:
>> [Fri Aug 26 19:59:23 2016] [error] [client 184.108.40.206]
>> Premature end of script headers: admin, referer:
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?
the UNH Mailing List Server Admins
Bill Costa, senior admin
Recently a spam message came in to four lists I administer. The email
was writtenlike this: firstmlast <user(a)example.com>.
I recognized the real name, because First M. Last, is someone I know
and is subscribed to all the lists. However, the "user(a)example.com"
was totally foreign. So spam.
Three of the lists automatically discarded the email, as I have
configured them to do, and sent me an notification about it. But the
fourth list sent it through, even though user(a)example.com was not
subscribed to the list, and I have generic_nonmember_action set to
For the life of me, I cannot figure out how/why this email got
through. I have set the list to emergency moderation for now, but I'd
like to know how it got through in the first place.
I did a config dump and vimdiff across the 3 lists, apart from the
list names, signatures, and two minor fields (max_num_recipients, and
admin_member_chunksize), they are all identical.
In, /usr/local/mailman/logs/post, I see this for the message:
Jun 26 03:48:40 2019 (1052) post to listname from user(a)example.com,
For the other 3 lists, I see this in /usr/local/mailman/logs/vette:
Jun 26 03:48:31 2019 (1050) Message discarded, msgid:
Jun 26 03:48:51 2019 (1050) Message discarded, msgid:
Jun 26 03:50:22 2019 (1050) Message discarded, msgid:
Does anyone know why the message to the fourth list went through?
I have one listserv subscriber, who is signed up for the regular (not
digest) version. He has been intermittently getting these odd versions
of messages. When he gets this format, he does not get the regular html
version. Most of the messages come through just fine. I have a number of
other ones he has sent me if you need to see them. I also have 9 other
subscribers on me.com, whom I have not gotten complaints from.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Fwd: yet another
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 14:50:37 -0700
From: George Lang <georgelang3(a)me.com>
And no normal from Lisa Crummet
Begin forwarded message:
> *From:* uhills-bounces(a)unihills.org <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> *Date:* June 16, 2019 at 13:40:06 PDT
> *To:* uhills(a)unihills.org <mailto:email@example.com>
> Content analysis details: (-2.1 points, 3.0 required)
> pts rule name description
> ---- ----------------------
> -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
> [score: 0.0000]
> 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
> provider (lisacrummett[at]gmail.com
> -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
> author's domain
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
> envelope-from domain
> 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> Subject: [Uhills] Free toys at 79 Murasaki
> X-BeenThere: uhills(a)unihills.org <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: UHills Community Announcements and Posts by Residents
> <uhills.unihills.org <http://uhills.unihills.org>>
> List-Archive: <https://unihills.org/mailman/private/uhills_unihills.org/>
> List-Post: <mailto:email@example.com>
> List-Help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
> From: Lisa Crummett via Uhills <uhills(a)unihills.org
> Reply-To: Lisa Crummett <lisacrummett(a)gmail.com
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Errors-To: uhills-bounces(a)unihills.org
> Sender: "Uhills" <uhills-bounces(a)unihills.org
> X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4
> X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it
> with any abuse report
> X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host3.pixelloom.net
> X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - me.com <http://me.com>
> X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
> X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - unihills.org <http://unihills.org>
> X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host3.pixelloom.net
> <http://host3.pixelloom.net>: acl_c_authenticated_local_user:
> X-Authenticated-Sender: host3.pixelloom.net
> <http://host3.pixelloom.net>: mailman(a)unihills.org
> X-MANTSH: 1TEIXR1kbG1oaGkNHB1tfTFwbGhsbGxMaGxEKTEMXGxoEGxsYBBsbGgQeGRAbHho
> X-CLX-Shades: None
> X-CLX-UShades: None
> X-CLX-Score: 211
> X-CLX-UnSpecialScore: None
> X-CLX-Spam: false
> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,,
> X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0
> suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0
> phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=211 mlxscore=0
> mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx
> scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1812120000 definitions=main-1906160198
For example, "munge from" is applied only to messages from domains that
publish a DMARC policy of 'reject' or 'quarantine'. However, if the
message mailman is sending has a valid DKIM signature because there is
no footer or subject prefix and no other edge cases, there is no reason
to munge, because it will pass the DMARC check. It seems Mailman could
do that. Or, if not, could it seems the MTA could do this checking and
Ian Kelling | Senior Systems Administrator, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: B125 F60B 7B28 7FF6 A2B7 DF8F 170A F0E2 9542 95DF
https://fsf.org | https://gnu.org