Making a Case for Upgrading MailMan from 2.1.17
I'd like some help in making a case to convince my hosting company to upgrade from Mailman 2.1.17.
I run several email lists for clubs, these are discussion lists that get up to 20 messages per day, and include up to 150 members. Replies are directed back to the list.
My primary issue with MM 2.1.17 is about list messages from members who don't have their human names configured into their email clients, resulting in a list message from an unknown. It is just from "via listname <listname@example.com>" Since I'm still stuck on 2.1.17. I don't know what I am missing in the newer versions. I just know that it's been over 2 years since 2.1.17 which has an annoying omission due the the whole DEMARC thing.
What are the advantages of upgrading beyond 2.1.17? How best to make a good case to convince them to upgrade their MailMan? What version should I ask for?
Thanks! Dave Nathanson Mac Medix
Dave Nathanson [dave.lists@nathanson.org] wrote:
I'd like some help in making a case to convince my hosting company to upgrade from Mailman 2.1.17.
I run several email lists for clubs, these are discussion lists that get up to 20 messages per day, and include up to 150 members. Replies are directed back to the list.
My primary issue with MM 2.1.17 is about list messages from members who don't have their human names configured into their email clients, resulting in a list message from an unknown. It is just from "via listname <listname@example.com>" Since I'm still stuck on 2.1.17. I don't know what I am missing in the newer versions. I just know that it's been over 2 years since 2.1.17 which has an annoying omission due the the whole DEMARC thing.
If you download the tar package for the latest version, 2.1.22, the NEWS file will give a changelog of what has changed between the versions. I don't believe a newer version would help you with the issue you are experiencing, however, as that is due to the way that Mailman handles messages which come from senders who's email operator publishes DMARC records for their domain.
Andrew.
Hi,
I was too hasty in sending out the prior message; actually there is a feature in 2.1.18 which I believe will help you with the issue you are having.
Prior to 2.1.18, the DMARC feature was activated on a per list basis, and was set for each member regardless of whether the sender's email provider had the DMARC set up on the domain. With 2.1.18, you can set it up so the headers only get munged if the DMARC action on the domain is quarrentine or reject. It is worth noting however that depending on how your host get Mailman, this feature may already be available. For example, some RedHat packages prior to 2.1.18 already have this feature built into them.
Sorry about that. Andrew.
From: Andrew Hodgson Sent: 23 June 2016 12:51 To: Dave Nathanson; mailman-users@python.org Subject: RE: [Mailman-Users] Making a Case for Upgrading MailMan from 2.1.17
Dave Nathanson [dave.lists@nathanson.org] wrote:
I'd like some help in making a case to convince my hosting company to upgrade from Mailman 2.1.17.
I run several email lists for clubs, these are discussion lists that get up to 20 messages per day, and include up to 150 members. Replies are directed back to the list.
My primary issue with MM 2.1.17 is about list messages from members who don't have their human names configured into their email clients, resulting in a list message from an unknown. It is just from "via listname <listname@example.com>" Since I'm still stuck on 2.1.17. I don't know what I am missing in the newer versions. I just know that it's been over 2 years since 2.1.17 which has an annoying omission due the the whole DEMARC thing.
If you download the tar package for the latest version, 2.1.22, the NEWS file will give a changelog of what has changed between the versions. I don't believe a newer version would help you with the issue you are experiencing, however, as that is due to the way that Mailman handles messages which come from senders who's email operator publishes DMARC records for their domain.
Andrew.
On 6/22/16 11:04 PM, Dave Nathanson wrote:
I'd like some help in making a case to convince my hosting company to upgrade from Mailman 2.1.17.
See the NEWS file at <http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1/view/head:/NEWS> for all the features and bug fixes since 2.1.17.
My primary issue with MM 2.1.17 is about list messages from members who don't have their human names configured into their email clients, resulting in a list message from an unknown. It is just from "via listname <listname@example.com>" Since I'm still stuck on 2.1.17. I don't know what I am missing in the newer versions. I just know that it's been over 2 years since 2.1.17 which has an annoying omission due the the whole DEMARC thing.
You have set from_is_list to Munge From. As Andrew says, in 2.1.18 and beyond, there is a more selective dmarc_moderation_action setting that does this munging only for post From: a domain with DMARC policy p=reject and optionally p=quarantine. Also, at some point (see the NEWS file for when) this munging was fixed to use the user's real_name list setting if the display name was not in the email.
What are the advantages of upgrading beyond 2.1.17? How best to make a good case to convince them to upgrade their MailMan? What version should I ask for?
You should look at the NEWS for all the things that are enhanced/fixed since 2.1.17. You should ask for the latest possible version. Note that the Mailman that manages this and over 300 other @python.org lists is at the head of the 2.1 branch at <http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mailman-coders/mailman/2.1/>. The latest 'official release' is 2.1.22 and 2.1.23 is coming soon.
It is possible, even likely, that your hosting company has installed a downstream packege (.rpm or .deb) for which there is no upgrade available. In this case, upgrading may be tricky, but at least if it is Debian/Ubuntu, see <https://wiki.list.org/x/17891606>, and in any case, we're here to help.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (3)
-
Andrew Hodgson -
Dave Nathanson -
Mark Sapiro