[Mailman-Users] Re: Poster not receiving his own posts

[Mark Sapiro]

Anthony Chavez wrote:
>
>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:53:56 -0800 Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> wrote:
>
>> Anthony Chavez wrote:
>>>
>>>I myself subscribe to this list, have the nodupes bit set, and see
>>>"Receive your own posts to the list? Yes" in my configuration page.  I
>>>receive copies of my own posts.  Would that be because I'm the owner?
>>
>> That's how it should work for everyone.
>
>The above statement seems to contradict the following one (from earlier
>in this thread).


Not necessarily. See below for more explanation.


>>>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:36:51 -0800 Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If a regular member's options include "nodupes" and the member's
>>>> address is in a To: or Cc: header of the post, Mailman will not send
>>>> the post to that member.
>
>This latter statement seems to be the accurate one, but I'm at a loss as
>to why I should be receiving my own posts when I have the nodupes bit
>set.  The only logical deduction that I can come up with is that it is
>because I am the list owner.

The latter statement is correct, but so is the former if we assume that
your own address is not mentioned in a To:, Cc:, Resent-To: or
Resent-Cc: header of your post.

If you do not want to receive your own posts, the setting that controls
this is called "not metoo" on the admin membership list and is
described as "Receive your own posts to the list?" on the user's
options page.

The setting called "nodupes" on the admin membership list is described
as "Avoid duplicate copies of messages?" on the user's options page.

To sumarize, "nodupes" means do not send this post to this member if
the member is included in the To:, Cc:, Resent-To: or Resent-Cc:
recipients of the post; "not metoo" means do not send this post to
this member if the member is the poster.

Also, as far as I know, Mailman makes absolutely no decision about any
delivery (other than an explicit delivery to listname-owner) based on
whether or not the would be recipient address is an owner or moderator.


>
>>>The other subscriber *also* has the nodupes bit, also sees "Receive your
>>>own posts to the list? Yes" in his configuration page.  He *doesn't*
>>>receive copies of his own posts, yet everyone else does.
>>
>> Then, assuming your re-analysis of the numbers is correct and Mailman
>> is not sending to him, there is something about his post as received
>> by Mailman which causes this. The most obvious thing would be that
>> somehow his own e-mail address is in the To: or Cc: (how it gets there
>> is another question).
>>
>> I suggest you carefully look at ALL the headers in his post(s) vs.
>> yours to try to see if you can identify any suspicious differences.
>
>Apart from the usual headers, there are 3 differences:
>
>1. He has a few X- headers, such as X-US-Mail, X-Telephone, X-FAX and
>   X-URL.  I have only X-PGP-Key.  In any case, these shouldn't affect.
>
>2. I have User-Agent, Mime-Version, Content-Type, and
>   Content-Transfer-Encoding.  Again, these shouldn't matter.
>
>3. He includes a Cc: header with no value in every post.  This seems
>   like it *could* be interfering, but why would it?


Mailman puts this empty Cc: header into some posts. The process in
AvoidDuplicates.py deletes any Cc: addresses for which it will avoid a
duplicate and collapses all remaining Cc:s into one header even if
there are zero Cc:s left or to begin with. All posts received from the
list (yours, his and anyone else's) that had any explicit recipients
other than the list will contain a Cc: with zero or more addresses.

The fact that his posts received from the list contain an empty Cc:
*MAY* indicate that his original message to the list contained a Cc:
to himself or to some other list member who avoids duplicates, but it
may not. There are other ways to get this empty Cc:. However, if the
To: mentions only the list address and it is all lower case (yes this
makes a difference) and there is no Resent-To: or Resent-Cc:, then the
empty Cc: means the original post had a non-empty Cc: and the
address(es) in that original Cc: were not sent a copy of the post
because they were set for nodups.


>> Another possibility might be topics, but I'm guessing your list doesn't
>> have topics defined or you would have looked at this.
>
>No, topics have not been configured, but if they were standing in the
>way, the message would be killed before being to delivered to *anyone,*
>wouldn't it?


No. The set of recipients would depend on what topic(s) if any the
message matched, what members are subscribed to those topics and if
the message didn't match any topics, which members elected to receive
such messages.

--
Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net>       The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan