[Mailman-Users] Posts from listowner address issue

[Mark Sapiro]

J.A. Terranson wrote:
>
>On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
>> >I stated in the original post that LO was also subbed.
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry. I missed that. I was more focussed on your multiple qrunners (my
>> diagnosis) issue, and then I skipped ahead.
>> 
>> Have you resolved the multiple qrunners?
>
>Yes, with work.  there multiples running (5)?  I don't know how or why, 
>but there were 5 full instantiations running.  Killed everything by hand 
>(mailmanctl stop was useless), and restarted it and everything *seems* OK 
>now.


mailmanctl stop should have stopped the last instance started, but yes,
it isn't going to stop everything in this situation.


>The files referenced were nowhere to be found, so picking them apart is a 
>non starter.  Looks like a race condition: Does mailman not check to see 
>if it's already running?


It does unless it is forced not to. The issue is that the check is via
lock files and init scripts tend to force override of the checks on
the theory that any lock files are residue from a prior boot.


>> >LO is getting 
>> >everything (requests, other list traffic, etc) *except* traffic from list 
>> >1.  But posts sent to list 1 show up in the archives of list 1:
>> >http://lists.ccm-l.org/pipermail/ccm-l/2008-December/011111.html
>> >http://lists.ccm-l.org/pipermail/ccm-l/2008-December/011112.html
>> 
>> 
>> Since the list is currently active, presumably others are receiving its
>> posts.
>
>Yep.
>
>> Is delivery enabled for the owner's subscribed address on list 1?
>Also mentioned in the first post: yes.


Actually, I don't see it in the first post at
<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2008-December/064447.html>.
In your second post at
<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2008-December/064449.html>,
I see

  I checked that I was still subbed and not being caught in a 
  discard file.

Perhaps "not being caught in a discard file" means to you that
Mailman's delivery is enabled, but it doesn't to me.

Actually, another possibility is that the owner-member of list one is
receiving digests.


>This was a really odd event.  I'm pretty surprised to find 5 copies 
>happily beating each other up without checking.  Could this be a build 
>issue (FreeBSD - I know there are reported "difficulties" here)< or does 
>MM not check?


Are you saying that fixing the multiple qrunner/Mailman instance issue
solved the missing mail problem? I'd be very surprised if that were
the case.

If the problem still exists, I think you need to check logs to find out
what's happening.

bin/list_members --regular --nomail=enabled ccm-l | wc -l

will tell you to how many recipients your test posts should be sent.

Also, you might do

bin/list_members --regular --nomail=enabled ccm-l | grep -i missing_adr

just to be sure.

Then check Mailman's smtp log for an entry like

Dec 20 08:39:58 2008 (30746) <message-id> smtp to ccm-l for nnn recips,
completed in t.ttt seconds

to see if nnn is the expected number. If it isn't (taking into account
that some member addresses in To: or Cc: might not be recipients
because of avoid dups), then we need to determine why. If it is, you
have to look at the MTA log to see what happened to the missing
recipient(s).

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