[Mailman-Users] Configure Repy-To header for confirmations

Mark Sapiro mark at msapiro.net
Mon Nov 3 00:24:45 CET 2008

Dennis Putnam wrote:
>Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> Still, if you can use VERP_CONFIRMATIONS, it would make the code
>> modifications simpler because of the way the address is generated. The
>> difference is without VERP_CONFIRMATIONS, the message is
>> From: list-request at ...
>> with
>> Subject: confirm xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...
>> and with VERP_CONFIRMATIONS it is
>> >From list-confirm+xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx... at ...
>> with
>> Subject: Your confirmation is required to ...
>> Of course, if the local part suffix is included in the length
>> restriction, this only makes it worse and can't be used.
>Since I don't know what the implications of VERP_CONFIRMATIONS are, I
>have reason to not try it. :)

The implication is exactly what I said above. The aditional implication
is that a reply which is addressed to
list-confirm+xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx... at ... has to be delivered the same as
if it were addressed to list-confirm at ...

>The length restriction is on the mailbox name or rather the user name
>(everything that precedes the '@').

Since Mailman doesn't use mailbox delivery, why do you have an issue
with these names at all?

>> Does the munging need to be done for all lists in the installation? Is
>> it done in the same way for each list? I.e. is list-request always
>> mapped to listreq or does the mapping vary depending on list. Can the
>> mapping be deduced programmatically, or would it have to be looked up in
>> a table?
>Actually no. There is only 1 list that otherwise exceeds this limit. The
>mapping can be deduced programmatically. It is simply the list name
>prepended to 'req' rather than prepended to '-request'.

I'm not convinced you even need to do this. How does your MTA actually
deliver to Mailman?

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

More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list