In the log file of mailman we see something like
to="user1@xyz.com, user2@xyz.com, user3@xyz.com, user4@xyz.com"
i.e. 4 users of the same domain are shown above. But on the mailserver of xyz.com [which is sendmail] in maillog file we see only user1@xyz.com, the other 3 users are not in maillog of xyz.com and not receiving the email.
Where could it be getting lost?
--
B.G. Mahesh
BG Mahesh wrote:
In the log file of mailman we see something like
to="user1@xyz.com, user2@xyz.com, user3@xyz.com, user4@xyz.com"
In which Mailman log file? What Mailman version?
I'm not aware of any Mailman log entries that look like that.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
Hi Folks
Please forgive me if these questions are already answered someplace in the on line documentation, I swear I've looked, but can't find info on these issues, and they're rather important to me. A point toward the right place on the site, or hopefully a quick answer would be greatly appreciated.
I moderate a hobby email list for about 6000 people from a remote location away from the server and sponsor of the list. I am not very technical and my vocabulary may be a bit off too, but hopefully I'll not take up a lot of time with silly questions. Just think of my mistakes as comic relief! <G> we're looking for alternative software to use for running this list and after a rather difficult conversion in the past, I'm hoping to better anticipate and deal with differences we'll find this time.
The way we've run the list requires that all messages must be read and approved by me, and at times I also need to 'add' comments to the end of a message. It appears that all approvals are done on the web, rather than through email, is that correct?
Is it hard to use an on line web approval system? To add comments, or to reformat the original message in particular? I've used one in the past that was nearly impossible to use and had to abandon it as it more than tripled the time required to do the job!
Is it necessary that messages be approved in the same order they were received in?
Can digest be manually created via some sort of command or are all digests created automatically based on size or a time of day set up on the system?
Is it possible to ban or strip all attachments completely?
I realize many of these issues raised are things people should be trained to do before sending in a message, but its impossible to train some folks who can barely turn on a computer to trim previous messages, make a subject line relevant, and wrap words properly - just a few of the issues I deal with every day. At the same time, some questions require a simple answer which I currently add to the end of their messages. If I don't do that 'add' I'll instead get 20 people answering it, so its far preferable that I answer them at once. I do realize messages can be 'deferred' but it would seem simpler to jump around and approve messages in a different order without having to defer things. All this may be moot if there's an option for doing the processing through email as I have always done in the past.
Another 'nice to have' option would be if digests are formatted with a list of inclusions at the beginning, including the subject, sender's name, and perhaps a number for each message? I've subbed here with another address to get digest versions, but none have arrived so perhaps Verizon's acting up again and I should check that out.
Thank you for any info you can give me, having gone through one change that was less than pleasant, I'm hoping to anticipate any possible issues up front this time.
Take care Gail
Gail wrote:
The way we've run the list requires that all messages must be read and approved by me, and at times I also need to 'add' comments to the end of a message. It appears that all approvals are done on the web, rather than through email, is that correct?
No. Moderated messages can be approved or discarded either via the web or via email.
Is it hard to use an on line web approval system? To add comments, or to reformat the original message in particular? I've used one in the past that was nearly impossible to use and had to abandon it as it more than tripled the time required to do the job!
The on line approval process is simple, but editing messages to be approved is very cumbersome at best. See <http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq03.009.htp>.
Is it necessary that messages be approved in the same order they were received in?
No, but approving a reply prior to the original message may affect threading in the archives.
Can digest be manually created via some sort of command or are all digests created automatically based on size or a time of day set up on the system?
Digests are normally produced once a day by a cron job and additionally when they reach a settable size limit. You can turn off periodic digests, and you can manually trigger a digest at any time.
Is it possible to ban or strip all attachments completely?
Yes.
All this may be moot if there's an option for doing the processing through email as I have always done in the past.
You can approve by email, and editing the 'approved' post is most easily accomplished by email too, although it is cumbersome.
Another 'nice to have' option would be if digests are formatted with a list of inclusions at the beginning, including the subject, sender's name, and perhaps a number for each message?
Digests come in two flavors selectable by the recipient. Either a flattened, plain text format or MIME format with each message in its own message/rfc822 part.
In either format, the messages are preceded by some list boiler plate and a table of contents like the following:
Today's Topics:
- RE: Triple chain rings (John Mulvihill)
- Compact Triple (Jack Holmgren)
- Re: Compact Triple (Mark Sapiro)
- Re: Compact Triple (Dan Brekke)
- Re: Compact Triple (Rich Fisher)
- Re: question about the ham-radio support (Oren Leiman)
- SSR Tomorrow (James Hand)
- Davis Double Century & Triple Crown Stage Race (Robert Ballard)
- Re: SSR Tomorrow (Rich Fisher)
- March 11th ASSR Cancelled (John Buenfil)
- Re: SSR Tomorrow (John Buenfil)
- Re: Saturday, March 11: TM Pace "Presto" Ride (Garcia Maria)
- Re: Saturday, March 11: TM Pace "Presto" Ride (Rich Fisher)
- Prehaps we don't need the front wheell after all (charles nighbor)
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
First, thanks very much for your prompt answers Mark! the more I read and hear about this system the more convinced I am this will be a great solution for us. You mentioned editing messages may be a bit cumbersome, but these new questions of mine will give you an idea of my tolerance for pain and cumbersomeness perhaps! <G> its not my first choice of course, but after some serious torture with software lately, nothing I can imagine would be worse than what I've dealt with already!
Right now, our archives consist of about 2500 old digests stored on my laptop, obviously not good! we have earlier archives stored on a website, but in a system we could no longer continue to update due to some tech reasons that aren't really clear to me. We've recently found a system to use for these archives, but it requires that I manually post each one to that system after running them through an editing system to disable addresses etc so I've got a lot of work in front of me. What occurs to me is, that if we convert to Mailman, we'd then have three separate archive systems, so, I'm wondering if there's a way to eliminate at least one of those.
Even if I had to manually post them to Mailman, I'd far rather do that rather than save to this other system so at least they'd all be in one place. My question is, is it possible to somehow get old digests into the system? And if so, is there a way to write a script to do that in some automated way?
Also, would I get better, searchable archives out of somehow posting each of the messages separately and letting the system create new digests?
And, if that's the case, could I do this update in a second list with only one or two dummy members, then somehow merge these archives with the 'real' list we'd be running concurrently while all these old messages were being processed into the system as I'm describing?
I also wonder if some or all of this rather labor intensive work I'm talking about could be handled by some sort of scripts?
I don't need to know HOW to do it now, it would go right over my head, but I'm wondering if I should hold off updating this other system for now and wait until we've converted, so really all I want to know is if these things are somehow possible?
Thanks! Gail
Gail wrote:
My question is, is it possible to somehow get old digests into the system? And if so, is there a way to write a script to do that in some automated way?
It is trivially easy to import messages into a Mailman archive with the bin/arch command line tool IF and ONLY IF the messages are in unix mbox format - i.e., a flat file with each message preceded by a line of the form
From sender@example.com Mon Mar 13 17:01:06 2006
followed immediately by the message headers, a blank line, the message body and a blank line.
If the messages aren't in mbox format to begin with, they need somehoy to be put in that format. There is some info at <http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq03.036.htp> that may be helpful.
Also, would I get better, searchable archives out of somehow posting each of the messages separately and letting the system create new digests?
What do you have in your existing digests?
Mailman's pipermail archives are indexed by month (by default) and each month has indices by date, subject, author and thread. The thread index depends on messages having a Message-Id: header and replies having a References: or a In-Reply-To: header. If you don't have this information in the mbox file, the thread index will be the same as the date index.
You still want individual messages rather than digests because otherwise, the archive indices will be full of messages with subject "... digest issue # ...".
Also, Mailman archives are not searchable within Mailman. There are patches for this, and if the archives are public, they can be searched with google if google indexes them. Go to <http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py> and search for archive. Some of the returned articles are relevant.
And, if that's the case, could I do this update in a second list with only one or two dummy members, then somehow merge these archives with the 'real' list we'd be running concurrently while all these old messages were being processed into the system as I'm describing?
If you need to create archives by posting messages one at a time, then yes, you can do it on a list with no members, and the archiving process will build the mbox file which can later be put together with the one for the live list. See <http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq03.003.htp> which discusses removing posts from the archive, but the same information applies to adding to an archive.
Basically, you just put the two mbox files together onto one and rebuild the archive. There are some issues with message numbering which are discussed in the FAQ, but they shouldn't be to significant with a fairly new archive.
I also wonder if some or all of this rather labor intensive work I'm talking about could be handled by some sort of scripts?
Again, depending on what information you have, you can script the creation of a mbox file, and you can script a list posting process too, but this shouldn't be necessary because posting a message to a list is not going to add anything that couldn't be programmatically added to create a mbox file.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
On 3/11/06, Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> wrote:
BG Mahesh wrote:
In the log file of mailman we see something like
to="user1@xyz.com, user2@xyz.com, user3@xyz.com, user4@xyz.com"
In which Mailman log file? What Mailman version?
I am sorry. I did not give the correct informaion.
Mailman is using sendmail and the entries that show all the 4 ids are from the sendmail log [of the mailman machine] But in the sendmail log file of the recepient's domain, we see only ONE id.
Versions: Mailman version: 2.1.7 Sendmail 8.13.5 Redhat Linux
I'm not aware of any Mailman log entries that look like that.
--
B.G. Mahesh
BG Mahesh wrote:
Mailman is using sendmail and the entries that show all the 4 ids are from the sendmail log [of the mailman machine] But in the sendmail log file of the recepient's domain, we see only ONE id.
Versions: Mailman version: 2.1.7 Sendmail 8.13.5 Redhat Linux
Then this appears to have nothing to do with Mailman. Mailman has given the mail to sendmail with all 4 recipients and sendmail has logged all 4 recipients. The fact that the mail is only delivered to one of the four seems to be strictly an issue between sendmail on the Mailman machine and sendmail in the receiving domain.
You could try sending your own message (not from Mailman) with an MUA or with sendmail directly from the Mailman machine to the same 4 recipients (one message with four recipients) and see what happens to that.
If that message is delivered to all four, you could try setting
SMTP_MAX_RCPTS = 10
in mm_cfg.py. 10 is just a guess - the default is 500. Or you could enable personalization for the list or set
VERP_DELIVERY_INTERVAL = 1
either of which will send a separate message to each recipient. But, even if this solves your problem, it is just a workaround. The real problem seems to be a sendmail issue.
I don't know where the best resources for sendmail support are, but try <http://www.sendmail.org> and <news:comp.mail.sendmail>.
-- Mark Sapiro <msapiro@value.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
participants (3)
-
BG Mahesh -
Gail -
Mark Sapiro