Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 1.0b9, password requirement.
-----Original Message----- From: Clark Evans <clark.evans@manhattanproject.com> To: bruce@perens.com <bruce@perens.com> Cc: sbolduc@uni-global.com <sbolduc@uni-global.com>; mailman-users@python.org <mailman-users@python.org> Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 1.0b9, password requirement.
bruce@perens.com wrote:
Rather than remove it, provide a check box to enable/disable it per list in the admin forms, or per user in the user's options. Then everybody will be happy.
Great.
i think that the passwd option are very important when you set your user/subscriber option, if you dont have a passwd anybody can change your option :-( . i am sure that noone want this
I won't give up subscription confirmation for anything, though. Too many times my lists have been used to maliciously mail-bomb someone.
Now, confirmation I completely agree with.
me too
Thanks
Roger Pe?a Escobio wrote:
i think that the passwd option are very important when you set your user/subscriber option, if you dont have a passwd anybody can change your option :-( . i am sure that noone want this
If it makes it harder for users to unsubscribe when they want out then I'd rather not have the password protection. Having people spam the list
PLEASE UN SUBSCRIBE ME
Isn't fun to watch. It should be SIMPLE and EASY to get off of a public list.
Clark
Clark Evans wrote:
Roger Pe?a Escobio wrote:
i think that the passwd option are very important when you set your user/subscriber option, if you dont have a passwd anybody can change your option :-( . i am sure that noone want this
If it makes it harder for users to unsubscribe when they want out then I'd rather not have the password protection. Having people spam the list
PLEASE UN SUBSCRIBE ME
Isn't fun to watch. It should be SIMPLE and EASY to get off of a public list.
There are obviously two camps to this debate. I think we can stop discussing the merits of each one.
Now we beg/plead/bribe the mailman developers to add it (an option to allow non-authenticated unsubscribes (subscribes and changes would still need to be authenticated, IMO)), or take it upon ourselves to produce a patch for them.
Cheers, -g
-- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Clark Evans wrote:
Having people spam the list
PLEASE UN SUBSCRIBE ME
Isn't fun to watch. It should be SIMPLE and EASY to get off of a public list.
One feature I really do like on the current ListProc is the automatic
detection of this sort of message and preventing it from being
distributed to the list. Once in a while it guesses wrong, which
can be inconvient for the post -- they get a notice that their
message wasn't posted and information on what to do to either re-post
or get help. But on the whole this is a really good feature. A
good wish list item for a future version of Mailman I would think.
Cordially,
The List Server Admin
list.admin@unh.edu
(currently Bill Costa)i think that the passwd option are very important when you set your user/subscriber option, if you dont have a passwd anybody can change your option :-( . i am sure that noone want this
I've not had this problem for over a year and a half with 4 majordomo lists with a total of 5K subscribers.
At any time someone could have unsubscribed someone else. This has _never_ been a problem. Not once. However, I do get about 5-10 per month asking how to unsubscribe themselves... this is my problem.
What you are talking about is an extremely rare thing (even if it exists), and you are forcing people to conform to your picture of reality which isn't very accurate.
Pretty Please? With sugar on top?
Clark
P.S.
Here is a message I sent to my list so that they would know how to unsubscribe... which is, BTW, not obvious. Take careful note of the number of steps!
-------- Original Message --------
From: Clark Evans <clark.evans@manhattanproject.com>
Subject: [JOS] A quick note on un-subscribing
To: general@jos.org
This mail server is a bit different than majordomo.
First of all, it currently requires a password for all list users. I'm not too happy about this personally, but when you were all migrated from jos-kernel and java-os-project, you were automagically assigned a password.
To un-subscribe in the new system:
- Go to:
http://www.jos.org/mailman/listinfo/general or http://www.jos.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
depending upon which list you no longer are interested in.
- Scroll down to where it says:
"To change your subscription (set options like digest and delivery modes, get a reminder of your password, or unsubscribe from General), enter your subscription email address:"
Fill in your e-mail address and press "Edit Options"
Scroll down to where it says:
"Click this button to have your password emailed to your list delivery address"
Press the button "Email My Password To Me"
Wait for the mail to come....
Press the BACK button (to get back to the /subscribe page )
Scroll to where it says:
"To unsubscribe, enter your password and hit the button."
Type in your password in the text area, and press "Unsubscribe"
That's it.
Once a month you will all receive a message saying what lists you are subscribed to and what the passwords for those lists are. This should help remind you that you are indeed subscribed to a list...
As of now, I don't know how to unsubscribe via e-mail, so if you know how with mailman, let me know. Furthermore, I don't know if there is an equivalent to the "unsubscribe * username" which is horribly useful...
If you have any problems with the above, please e-mail me _personally_ and I will make sure that business is taken care of.
Best,
Clark Evans
General maillist - General@jos.org http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/general
I've not had this problem for over a year and a half with 4 majordomo lists with a total of 5K subscribers.
That's because majordomo doesn't have any options to choose from. :)
At any time someone could have unsubscribed someone else. This has _never_ been a problem. Not once. However, I do get about 5-10 per month asking how to unsubscribe themselves... this is my problem.
I've had this part happen many times.
Pretty Please? With sugar on top?
I believe that making this configurable is ultimately a good thing to put on the TODO list, but not until 1.0 is released.
And I bet that the core developers would be thrilled if one of us users who always asks for new features (yes, myself included) would actually make the changes instead of asking them to do it. :)
(no that's not targetted at you... just a subtle way of saying to the readership, "help if you can!")
Chris
The ISP that hosts the the list I admin recently switched from MajorDomo to Mailman. What an inprovement! But I'm having problems with a privacy feature.
On the privacy page, I went to the section that's titled: "Addresses whose postings are always held for approval" and I typed an address of a test account I have. The address as I specified it is: xxxx@company.com. Yet messages from this account are NOT being held.
Ideas? Perhaps since my test account tags the From address as "Proper Name" <xxxx@company.com>. Should this cause a problem? Shouldn't Mailman simply compare actual address and not the proper name also?
Thanks,
John Broman List Owner Corvette Restoration and Preservation List (CRPL)
At 11:21 PM 3/24/99 -0500, John C. Broman, Jr. wrote:
On the privacy page, I went to the section that's titled: "Addresses whose postings are always held for approval" and I typed an address of a test account I have. The address as I specified it is: xxxx@company.com. Yet messages from this account are NOT being held.
At 11:36 PM 3/24/99 -0500, John C. Broman, Jr. wrote:
I'm still having problems with setting my list to members-only. When I set it to members-only, everyone's messages bounce. This applies to members mass-subscribed when Mailman was installed for me as well as members who joined (and confirmed) after the list was running on Mailman.
A common cause for *both* of these problems is the sendmail "feature" that rewrites the Envelope address. This only happens IF you are sending to an alias "mylist" AND you also have an alias defined for "owner-mylist".
This causes Sendmail to assume that you have an "aliases mailing list", and rewrites the sender address (in the SMTP transaction, not in the headers) to be whatever the owner-x address is. The idea is that if the mailing list is made up of just aliases or :include: lists, then you want the "owner of the alias" to get the bounces, and not the original sender. Unfortunately this screws with REAL mailing list managers, which behave as though ALL the messages are coming from mylist-admin (and if mylist-admin is not subscribed, his messages typically get held for approval or bounce or whatever).
The workaround is to undefine "owner-*" for all your Mailman lists. I think Mailman uses "*-owner" or "*-admin" for everything anyway, which is fine, only "owner-*" creates a problem. Don't forget to run "newaliases" after you do this.
(It's kind of strange for Mailman to emit "owner-*" aliases as part of the recommended set... this means that installing the default, recommended Sendmail and the default, recommended Mailman leaves you in a somewhat broken state, when all you did was follow directions. I would prefer Mailman not suggest owner-* aliases at all.)
participants (7)
-
Christopher Lindsey -
Clark Evans -
Greg Connor -
Greg Stein -
John C. Broman, Jr. -
Roger Pe?a Escobio -
The List Server Administrator＠UNH