Hi,
I have around 32 aliases setup and they all are working fine with an exception of one in particular which has around 140 users.
For some unknown reason sending mail to this alias, not everyone (140 users) on this list get messages. Few do and others don't?
Is there a way to check for corruption? What should I be looking for? I'm kinda lost.
Any recommendation will be appreciated.
I'm running mailman v2.1.5-8 on debian (sarge).
regards, /virendra
noc ops wrote:
For some unknown reason sending mail to this alias, not everyone (140 users) on this list get messages. Few do and others don't?
Is there a way to check for corruption? What should I be looking for? I'm kinda lost.
Check Mailman's log files - particularly smtp, smtp-failure and bounce.
If the smtp log shows the post is sent to a smaller number than expected, check the users settings in the membership list for 'nomail' and maybe 'digest'. Also, are Topics defined for the list or were Topics ever defined? This can cause members to not get all messages.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark Sapiro wrote:
noc ops wrote:
For some unknown reason sending mail to this alias, not everyone (140 users) on this list get messages. Few do and others don't?
Is there a way to check for corruption? What should I be looking for? I'm kinda lost.
Check Mailman's log files - particularly smtp, smtp-failure and bounce.
I will check this in the morning and report back.
If the smtp log shows the post is sent to a smaller number than expected, check the users settings in the membership list for 'nomail' and maybe 'digest'.
Nope none of these are checked. I even subscribed/unsubscribed users from this alias with no avail. How do you fix the corruption issue.
Also, are Topics defined for the list or were
Topics ever defined? This can cause members to not get all messages.
The topic filter is disabled.
What's interesting is, under 'Privacy Options'-->'Recipient filters' the "Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting" was set to 10. So I've set this to 0 to see what happens.
regards, /virendra
noc ops wrote:
Mark Sapiro wrote:
noc ops wrote:
For some unknown reason sending mail to this alias, not everyone (140 users) on this list get messages. Few do and others don't?
Is there a way to check for corruption? What should I be looking for? I'm kinda lost.
Check Mailman's log files - particularly smtp, smtp-failure and bounce.
I will check this in the morning and report back.
/var/log/mailman/smtp shows e-mails were delivered to all receipts within the alias.
/var/log/smtp-failure and bounce is empty.
Is there anything that I'm may be overlooking?
regards, /virendra
If the smtp log shows the post is sent to a smaller number than expected, check the users settings in the membership list for 'nomail' and maybe 'digest'.
Nope none of these are checked. I even subscribed/unsubscribed users from this alias with no avail. How do you fix the corruption issue.
Also, are Topics defined for the list or were
Topics ever defined? This can cause members to not get all messages.
The topic filter is disabled.
What's interesting is, under 'Privacy Options'-->'Recipient filters' the "Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting" was set to 10. So I've set this to 0 to see what happens.
regards, /virendra
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/aptgetd%40gmail.com
Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
On 3/31/06, noc ops <aptgetd@gmail.com> wrote:
/var/log/mailman/smtp shows e-mails were delivered to all receipts within the alias.
You should check your MTA logs at this point to see why the messages weren't delivered. Mailman handed them off properly- or at least reported that it did.
--
- Patrick Bogen
noc ops wrote:
What's interesting is, under 'Privacy Options'-->'Recipient filters' the "Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting" was set to 10. So I've set this to 0 to see what happens.
This has nothing to do with your issue. It is the number of explicit addresses in To: and Cc: headers of the message *to* the list which will cause the post to be held for moderator approval because of "too many recipients".
As Patrick said in reply to your followup, you now need to look to your MTA logs, but it is curious that your bounce log is empty. Is bounce_processing set off for this list?
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark Sapiro wrote:
noc ops wrote:
What's interesting is, under 'Privacy Options'-->'Recipient filters' the "Ceiling on acceptable number of recipients for a posting" was set to 10. So I've set this to 0 to see what happens.
This has nothing to do with your issue. It is the number of explicit addresses in To: and Cc: headers of the message *to* the list which will cause the post to be held for moderator approval because of "too many recipients".
ok.
As Patrick said in reply to your followup, you now need to look to your MTA logs, but it is curious that your bounce log is empty. Is bounce_processing set off for this list?
I'm trying to bypass my spam filter and go directly to my e-mail server to see if it could be causing issues.
In order to bypass my MX record, I like to point my mailman directly to to e-mail server's ip address (10.0.0.10). See below cust and paste.
Is this correct? Please advice.
etc/postfix/main.cf
myhostname = mailman.domain.com alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases ##alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/aliases, hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases ##alias_database = hash:/etc/postfix/aliases myorigin = /etc/mailname mydestination = mailman.domain.com, localhost.domain.com, , localhost relayhost = 10.0.0.10 mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 mailbox_command = procmail -a "$EXTENSION" mailbox_size_limit = 0 recipient_delimiter = + inet_interfaces = all
/etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py
#------------------------------------------------------------- # Default domain for email addresses of newly created MLs DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST = '10.0.0.10' #------------------------------------------------------------- # Default host for web interface of newly created MLs DEFAULT_URL_HOST = 'mailman.domain.com' #-------------------------------------------------------------
regards, /virendra
noc ops wrote:
In order to bypass my MX record, I like to point my mailman directly to to e-mail server's ip address (10.0.0.10). See below cust and paste.
Is this correct? Please advice.
I don't know about the postfix stuff
/etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py
#------------------------------------------------------------- # Default domain for email addresses of newly created MLs DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST = '10.0.0.10'
This is almost certainly wrong. This should be the domain that users address their list mail to. Unless you actually want Mailman mail to be addressed to e.g., listname@10.0.0.10, you don't want this.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Mark Sapiro wrote:
noc ops wrote:
In order to bypass my MX record, I like to point my mailman directly to to e-mail server's ip address (10.0.0.10). See below cust and paste.
Is this correct? Please advice.
I don't know about the postfix stuff
no worries...I'll ping the list about postfix MX related question.
/etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py
#------------------------------------------------------------- # Default domain for email addresses of newly created MLs DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST = '10.0.0.10'
This is almost certainly wrong. This should be the domain that users address their list mail to. Unless you actually want Mailman mail to be addressed to e.g., listname@10.0.0.10, you don't want this.
Yeah I figured this the minute I saw my /var/log/mail.log complaining about illegal address systax as you indicated. I've changed it since then.
regards, /virendra
participants (3)
-
Mark Sapiro -
noc ops -
Patrick Bogen