Hi there,
Mailman 1.0 release candidate 2 (1.0rc2) is now available for download from
<URL:http://www.list.org/mailman.tar.gz>This is a bugfix release -- most notably, a security flaw in Mailman's cookie authentication mechanisms have been fixed. As the security flaw could be used to obtain access to any Mailman admin page, EVERYONE using Mailman are urged to upgrade AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
One word to everyone who has reported bugs, submitted patches, given suggestions for improvements, or in other ways helped making Mailman the product it is today: Thanks!
Se the NEWS file for some more info on what this release fixes.
Enjoy,
Harald
Question.... I have 1.0rc1. I unpacked the archive and did a
./configure
and then a
make update
It said it updated the mail lists. However on the web pages it says rc1. Is that ok? Should I have done a make install from rc1 to rc2?
-Josh
Harald Meland wrote:
Hi there,
Mailman 1.0 release candidate 2 (1.0rc2) is now available for download from
<URL:http://www.list.org/mailman.tar.gz>This is a bugfix release -- most notably, a security flaw in Mailman's cookie authentication mechanisms have been fixed. As the security flaw could be used to obtain access to any Mailman admin page, EVERYONE using Mailman are urged to upgrade AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
One word to everyone who has reported bugs, submitted patches, given suggestions for improvements, or in other ways helped making Mailman the product it is today: Thanks!
Se the NEWS file for some more info on what this release fixes.
Enjoy,
Harald
Mailman-announce mailing list Mailman-announce@python.org http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-announce
-- Joshua Levitsky http://www.joshie.com/
Josh -
After reading the INSTALL and UPGRADING files in rc2, I concluded that all I needed to do was './configure' and then 'make install'. This worked well for me (I have a virgin install of rc1).
The note at the end of the 'make install' output said to do 'make upgrade' which I then did. It spewed some confusing output about how my lists were all OK - I concluded that 'make update' was for converting lists from an old format that I don't have....
Regards,
Richard.
Richard Ames linsup.com, Sydney, Australia Tel: +61 2 9144-6131, Fax: +61 2 9144-6138 mailto:richard@linsup.com http://www.linsup.com
-----Original Message----- From: mailman-users-admin@python.org [mailto:mailman-users-admin@python.org]On Behalf Of Joshua Levitsky Sent: Wednesday, 16 June 1999 3:52 To: mailman-users@python.org Subject: [Mailman-Users] Re: [Mailman-Announce] [ANNOUNCE] Mailman 1.0rc2
Question.... I have 1.0rc1. I unpacked the archive and did a
./configure
and then a
make update
It said it updated the mail lists. However on the web pages it says rc1. Is that ok? Should I have done a make install from rc1 to rc2?
-Josh
Had a piece of spam clogging up the admindb section because of a "%" in the Subject:
This patch against 1.0rc2 fixed it
*** ListAdmin.orig.py Wed Jul 7 19:33:01 1999 --- ListAdmin.py Wed Jul 7 19:33:32 1999
*** 164,169 **** --- 164,170 ---- note = note + '\n\tHeld: ' + strquote(data[1]) if comment: note = note + '\n\tDiscarded: ' + strquote(comment)
note = strquote(note) self.LogMsg("vette", note) def HandleAddMemberRequest(self, data, value, comment):
Dan
Dan Busarow 949 443 4172 Dana Point Communications, Inc. dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82
Had a piece of spam clogging up the admindb section because of a "%" in the Subject:
Hmm... This was reported and fixed a while back.
http://www.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/1999-April/001011.html http://www.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/1999-April/001047.html
This patch against 1.0rc2 fixed it
Did it fall out of the distribution, or get reintroduced?
Chris
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Christopher Lindsey wrote:
Had a piece of spam clogging up the admindb section because of a "%" in the Subject:
Hmm... This was reported and fixed a while back.
http://www.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/1999-April/001011.html http://www.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/1999-April/001047.html
This patch against 1.0rc2 fixed it
Did it fall out of the distribution, or get reintroduced?
I experienced and fixed the problem on a system running 1.0b11 I grabbed 1.0rc2 after that and since the code in question looked the same at first glance I thought it was still there.
Closer examination reveals that it already handled in 1.0rc2
Sorry if I caused anyone to waste time checking this.
Dan
Dan Busarow 949 443 4172 Dana Point Communications, Inc. dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82
participants (5)
-
Christopher Lindsey -
Dan Busarow -
Harald Meland -
Joshua Levitsky -
Richard Ames