From jesse at jbcrawford.us  Thu Mar  1 00:26:13 2018
From: jesse at jbcrawford.us (Jesse B. Crawford)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 22:26:13 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] 'Read-only file system' when processing posts
Message-ID: <e28a3553-5f03-124e-e093-f0182d66fda6@jbcrawford.us>

Hello,
I'm having a rather frustrating problem that I haven't been able to find
anyone else running into and I'm a bit stumped. I have mailman installed
from source on a Fedora 27 machine, and I'm using it along with Postfix
in a configuration using an aliases file and virtual domain map managed
by Mailman, as described in the manual.

When I try to email to a list, the following error is produced:

Feb 28 20:30:45 alpha postfix/local[4278]: 87DFA4018657D:
to=<listname at lists.domain.tld>, relay=local, delay=0.23,
delays=0.05/0.01/0/0.17, dsn=5.3.0, status=bounced (Command died with
status 1: "/usr/local/mailman/mail/mailman post listname". Command output:
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "/usr/local/mailman/scripts/post", line 69, in <module>     main()
   File "/usr/local/mailman/scripts/post", line 64, in main
tolist=1, _plaintext=1)
   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Queue/Switchboard.py", line 136, in
enqueue     fp = open(tmpfile, 'w')
 IOError: [Errno 30] Read-only file system:
'/usr/local/mailman/qfiles/in/1519878645.717417+32700e28bfadb80bc2aa1db465be6ad2122f6a69.pck.tmp'
)

I have added newlines to make the stacktrace a bit more readable. Of
course you can see that the error is "Read-only file system" but I can
assure you that the file system is not read-only. I have run the
check_perms command (no problems found) and also checked manually that
the 'mailman' user should have write permissions in that location. I
have 'su'd to the mailman user and written in that directory to be
certain. I have also checked that the permissions on
/usr/local/mailman/data/aliases and
/usr/local/mailman/data/virtual-mailman and their corresponding .db
files are correct.

Of course all of this is assuming it's a permissions problem, which
ought to produce a different exception from Python. Any ideas about what
the "Read-only file system" exception could possibly be about?

As far as other potential causes, selinux is disabled on this machine
and the file system looks fine as far as space and inodes available.
Plenty of other things are writing in var without trouble.

Thanks in advance for any ideas on this issue.

-- 
Jesse B. Crawford
jesse at jbcrawford.us
https://jbcrawford.us
GPG 0x4085BDC1

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  1 12:16:01 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 09:16:01 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Issues w/ subscribe/reCAPTCHA v2 on Mailman
 2.1.26
In-Reply-To: <CAH5r4X_Ha_8pxUbBheVt1kAxndizywNZYZ93dZ1dhxY9OP-V-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5r4X_Ha_8pxUbBheVt1kAxndizywNZYZ93dZ1dhxY9OP-V-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <686e6de1-d82b-7b6c-40ae-b9df73b3e95b@msapiro.net>

On 02/28/2018 11:01 AM, Dave Pascoe wrote:
> Just upgraded to Mailman 2.1.26 on a CentOS 5.11 system (yeah, I
> know....this is a legacy box and will be migrating to a newer OS soon).


And the problem will be solved.


> I'm
> trying to enable reCAPTCHA v2 support. I've defined:
> 
> RECAPTCHA_SITE_KEY = '...'
> RECAPTCHA_SECRET_KEY = '...'
> 
> in mm_cfg.py.


Once again, I have introduced a Python 2.7 dependency :(

For older Python versions, line 154 in Mailman/Cgi/subscribe.py which is

        except urllib2.URLError as e:

needs to be

        except urllib2.URLError, e:

This is now reported at <https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/1752658>.

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

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  1 13:06:53 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 10:06:53 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] 'Read-only file system' when processing posts
In-Reply-To: <e28a3553-5f03-124e-e093-f0182d66fda6@jbcrawford.us>
References: <e28a3553-5f03-124e-e093-f0182d66fda6@jbcrawford.us>
Message-ID: <d4b31123-2794-0c9f-c71d-e8c5b59aaaeb@msapiro.net>

On 02/28/2018 09:26 PM, Jesse B. Crawford wrote:
> 
> When I try to email to a list, the following error is produced:
...
>    File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Queue/Switchboard.py", line 136, in
> enqueue     fp = open(tmpfile, 'w')
>  IOError: [Errno 30] Read-only file system:
> '/usr/local/mailman/qfiles/in/1519878645.717417+32700e28bfadb80bc2aa1db465be6ad2122f6a69.pck.tmp'


Normally that means the file system containing
/usr/local/mailman/qfiles/in/ is mounted read-only, but you probably
knew that.


> As far as other potential causes, selinux is disabled on this machine
> and the file system looks fine as far as space and inodes available.
> Plenty of other things are writing in var without trouble.


I was going to suggest SELinux, but you've already covered that.

The one thing you can check (I don't think check_perms checks it) is
mailman's aliases.db file MUST be owned by mailman. Postfix runs the
pipe as the user that owns the aliases.db file in which the pipe alias
is found. See DELIVERY RIGHTS in 'man local'.

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

From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu  Thu Mar  1 13:38:54 2018
From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:38:54 -0600
Subject: [Mailman-Users] 'Read-only file system' when processing posts
In-Reply-To: <d4b31123-2794-0c9f-c71d-e8c5b59aaaeb@msapiro.net>
References: <e28a3553-5f03-124e-e093-f0182d66fda6@jbcrawford.us>
 <d4b31123-2794-0c9f-c71d-e8c5b59aaaeb@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <65fe3144-e29b-cd68-4eb9-7737d8310f77@bmrb.wisc.edu>

On 03/01/2018 12:06 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:

> The one thing you can check (I don't think check_perms checks it) is
> mailman's aliases.db file MUST be owned by mailman. Postfix runs the
> pipe as the user that owns the aliases.db file in which the pipe alias
> is found. See DELIVERY RIGHTS in 'man local'.

I've seem disk/fs errors causing "read only filesystem", but then you
get the same error creating a file in there by hand. Which I'm assuming
is not the case here.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/attachments/20180301/9142bf26/attachment.sig>

From jesse at jbcrawford.us  Thu Mar  1 14:22:08 2018
From: jesse at jbcrawford.us (Jesse B. Crawford)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:22:08 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] 'Read-only file system' when processing posts
In-Reply-To: <65fe3144-e29b-cd68-4eb9-7737d8310f77@bmrb.wisc.edu>
References: <e28a3553-5f03-124e-e093-f0182d66fda6@jbcrawford.us>
 <d4b31123-2794-0c9f-c71d-e8c5b59aaaeb@msapiro.net>
 <65fe3144-e29b-cd68-4eb9-7737d8310f77@bmrb.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <161e303bb00.279b.34829ecd81cc2bdd3224b01fbb9f6e50@jbcrawford.us>

Yes, I can create rules by hand fine including as the mailman user.

I've also checked the ownership and group on both aliases and the virtual 
domain map. I'm still wondering if postfix might be using the wrong user or 
group but I'm not sure how best to test that.


On March 1, 2018 11:49:01 AM Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote:

> On 03/01/2018 12:06 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
>> The one thing you can check (I don't think check_perms checks it) is
>> mailman's aliases.db file MUST be owned by mailman. Postfix runs the
>> pipe as the user that owns the aliases.db file in which the pipe alias
>> is found. See DELIVERY RIGHTS in 'man local'.
>
> I've seem disk/fs errors causing "read only filesystem", but then you
> get the same error creating a file in there by hand. Which I'm assuming
> is not the case here.
>
> --
> Dimitri Maziuk
> Programmer/sysadmin
> BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/jesse%40jbcrawford.us
>



From james at dorydesign.com  Thu Mar  1 14:41:55 2018
From: james at dorydesign.com (Jim Dory)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 10:41:55 -0900
Subject: [Mailman-Users] User's message discarded by SpamDetect
Message-ID: <CAKhfoy2-QdYqaWow4SZxCXFpv1Df_r9jDf38jf8FGQCk0E1D2Q@mail.gmail.com>

Our local campus from Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks has set up an (I believe)
alias email account on the alaska.edu domain. Their system uses gmail.com'
business account to handle email. When the user tries to send to our list,
it gets blocked with no bounce. From the
/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/logs/vette file:

Mar 01 17:34:48 2018 (11087) Message discarded, msgid: <
CACxqi6wTfXca-AAjNp5MUsCb4wKLfJwGgkb4K2t+hxi6_8LWog at mail.gmail.com>'
       list: Nome-announce,
       handler: SpamDetect

I have various filters in the mailman administrative interface, but when
those are tripped I think I usually get a bounce of "autodiscard" and the
message that is discarded. I'm not seeing it in this case, so think it may
be prior to those filters.

In the WHM interface, under Exim config for spamassassin, I had the
threshold set at "3", and just changed it to "5", but no luck on letting
her send a message.

One curious thing about her email account was the bounce after the monthly
email reminder:


Final-Recipient: rfc822; nwc.<snip>@alaska.edu <nwc.info at alaska.edu>
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; Bounce messages should not be posted to a
mailinglist.
Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 21:01:37 -0800 (PST)

She can post the message via her personal gmail account.

So this may be an issue with gmail, or their setup with the alias, but
curious if you would know how to fix it? I could post the message, but it
is just boiler plate stuff mentioning upcoming classes/events.

She occasionally has success posting to the list under this alias, but has
experienced similar problems on other messages. We can email back and forth
using the alias.

thx, Jim

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  1 14:50:13 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 11:50:13 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] 'Read-only file system' when processing posts
In-Reply-To: <161e303bb00.279b.34829ecd81cc2bdd3224b01fbb9f6e50@jbcrawford.us>
References: <e28a3553-5f03-124e-e093-f0182d66fda6@jbcrawford.us>
 <d4b31123-2794-0c9f-c71d-e8c5b59aaaeb@msapiro.net>
 <65fe3144-e29b-cd68-4eb9-7737d8310f77@bmrb.wisc.edu>
 <161e303bb00.279b.34829ecd81cc2bdd3224b01fbb9f6e50@jbcrawford.us>
Message-ID: <44863438-26d3-b5f7-9a57-4585abc75004@msapiro.net>

On 03/01/2018 11:22 AM, Jesse B. Crawford wrote:
> Yes, I can create rules by hand fine including as the mailman user.


???

We're not talking about creating rules. We're talking about creating
queue files in /usr/local/mailman/qfiles/in/


> I've also checked the ownership and group on both aliases and the
> virtual domain map. I'm still wondering if postfix might be using the
> wrong user or group but I'm not sure how best to test that.


Postfix pipes the mail to "/usr/local/mailman/mail/mailman post
listname" as the user and primary group of the owner of the aliases.db
file in which it finds the alias. Presumably, the group is correct or
the wrapper at /usr/local/mailman/mail/mailman would be complaining of a
group mismatch error, and presumably this wrapper is SETGID and
Mailman's group so that it actually runs with Mailman's group as
effective group.

Thus, the error is still a mystery to me assuming that Mailman's group
can create files in /usr/local/mailman/qfiles/in/

One thing you might check is whether Mailman can create queue entries.
You might run as the mailman user, Mailman's

bin/inject -l LISTNAME /path/to/file/containing/test/message

This will create an entry in /usr/local/mailman/qfiles/in/ and Mailman's
processing of this will remove that and make entries in
/usr/local/mailman/qfiles/out/ and /usr/local/mailman/qfiles/archive/
which will in turn be processed and removed. Does all this work?

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

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  1 15:08:19 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:08:19 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] User's message discarded by SpamDetect
In-Reply-To: <CAKhfoy2-QdYqaWow4SZxCXFpv1Df_r9jDf38jf8FGQCk0E1D2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKhfoy2-QdYqaWow4SZxCXFpv1Df_r9jDf38jf8FGQCk0E1D2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <740e4d59-e94e-e98b-1b25-6d519cee9d5d@msapiro.net>

On 03/01/2018 11:41 AM, Jim Dory wrote:
> Our local campus from Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks has set up an (I believe)
> alias email account on the alaska.edu domain. Their system uses gmail.com'
> business account to handle email. When the user tries to send to our list,
> it gets blocked with no bounce. From the
> /usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/logs/vette file:
> 
> Mar 01 17:34:48 2018 (11087) Message discarded, msgid: <
> CACxqi6wTfXca-AAjNp5MUsCb4wKLfJwGgkb4K2t+hxi6_8LWog at mail.gmail.com>'
>        list: Nome-announce,
>        handler: SpamDetect


There are a few possibilities.

She is posting from a domain with a DMARC policy of reject or quarantine
and the list's dmarc_moderation_action is Discard.

You have configured a list of tuples of the form (header, regexp) in
KNOWN_SPAMMERS in mm_cfg.py and some header in her message matches a
corresponding KNOWN_SPAMMERS regexp.

You have configured header_filter_rules and a rule with action Discard
matches this message.

None of these honor the forward_auto_discards setting.

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

From james at dorydesign.com  Thu Mar  1 15:29:44 2018
From: james at dorydesign.com (Jim Dory)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 11:29:44 -0900
Subject: [Mailman-Users] User's message discarded by SpamDetect
In-Reply-To: <740e4d59-e94e-e98b-1b25-6d519cee9d5d@msapiro.net>
References: <CAKhfoy2-QdYqaWow4SZxCXFpv1Df_r9jDf38jf8FGQCk0E1D2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <740e4d59-e94e-e98b-1b25-6d519cee9d5d@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <CAKhfoy1F_O8ct=sgYgML=GiR8eYFKV+gC3-P62-=wDwdBDxjbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Mark,

I changed the header filter rules to Hold to see if that helps in locating
the problem. The DMARC thing was listed as Accept. Known spammers had a
reject expression with somedomain.edu that I deleted in case it was causing
the issue with the alaska.edu. We'll see, I've asked her to try resending
again.   thx, Jim

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> wrote:

> On 03/01/2018 11:41 AM, Jim Dory wrote:
> > Our local campus from Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks has set up an (I believe)
> > alias email account on the alaska.edu domain. Their system uses
> gmail.com'
> > business account to handle email. When the user tries to send to our
> list,
> > it gets blocked with no bounce. From the
> > /usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/logs/vette file:
> >
> > Mar 01 17:34:48 2018 (11087) Message discarded, msgid: <
> > CACxqi6wTfXca-AAjNp5MUsCb4wKLfJwGgkb4K2t+hxi6_8LWog at mail.gmail.com>'
> >        list: Nome-announce,
> >        handler: SpamDetect
>
>
> There are a few possibilities.
>
> She is posting from a domain with a DMARC policy of reject or quarantine
> and the list's dmarc_moderation_action is Discard.
>
> You have configured a list of tuples of the form (header, regexp) in
> KNOWN_SPAMMERS in mm_cfg.py and some header in her message matches a
> corresponding KNOWN_SPAMMERS regexp.
>
> You have configured header_filter_rules and a rule with action Discard
> matches this message.
>
> None of these honor the forward_auto_discards setting.
>
> --
> Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
> San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/
> mailman-users%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/
> james%40dorydesign.com
>

From james at dorydesign.com  Thu Mar  1 15:40:40 2018
From: james at dorydesign.com (Jim Dory)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 11:40:40 -0900
Subject: [Mailman-Users] User's message discarded by SpamDetect
In-Reply-To: <CAKhfoy1F_O8ct=sgYgML=GiR8eYFKV+gC3-P62-=wDwdBDxjbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKhfoy2-QdYqaWow4SZxCXFpv1Df_r9jDf38jf8FGQCk0E1D2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <740e4d59-e94e-e98b-1b25-6d519cee9d5d@msapiro.net>
 <CAKhfoy1F_O8ct=sgYgML=GiR8eYFKV+gC3-P62-=wDwdBDxjbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKhfoy2O=PxgO8Y4z6vZCtwLzT2uXwzRKqorVcGhsgRBjaJ0gA@mail.gmail.com>

Found the problem in one of the filters. Problem solved, thanks!

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Jim Dory <james at dorydesign.com> wrote:

> Thanks Mark,
>
> I changed the header filter rules to Hold to see if that helps in locating
> the problem. The DMARC thing was listed as Accept. Known spammers had a
> reject expression with somedomain.edu that I deleted in case it was
> causing the issue with the alaska.edu. We'll see, I've asked her to try
> resending again.   thx, Jim
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/01/2018 11:41 AM, Jim Dory wrote:
>> > Our local campus from Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks has set up an (I
>> believe)
>> > alias email account on the alaska.edu domain. Their system uses
>> gmail.com'
>> > business account to handle email. When the user tries to send to our
>> list,
>> > it gets blocked with no bounce. From the
>> > /usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/logs/vette file:
>> >
>> > Mar 01 17:34:48 2018 (11087) Message discarded, msgid: <
>> > CACxqi6wTfXca-AAjNp5MUsCb4wKLfJwGgkb4K2t+hxi6_8LWog at mail.gmail.com>'
>> >        list: Nome-announce,
>> >        handler: SpamDetect
>>
>>
>> There are a few possibilities.
>>
>> She is posting from a domain with a DMARC policy of reject or quarantine
>> and the list's dmarc_moderation_action is Discard.
>>
>> You have configured a list of tuples of the form (header, regexp) in
>> KNOWN_SPAMMERS in mm_cfg.py and some header in her message matches a
>> corresponding KNOWN_SPAMMERS regexp.
>>
>> You have configured header_filter_rules and a rule with action Discard
>> matches this message.
>>
>> None of these honor the forward_auto_discards setting.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
>> San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
>> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
>> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/ma
>> ilman-users%40python.org/
>> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/james%
>> 40dorydesign.com
>>
>
>

From jesse at jbcrawford.us  Thu Mar  1 21:53:51 2018
From: jesse at jbcrawford.us (Jesse B. Crawford)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 19:53:51 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] 'Read-only file system' when processing posts
In-Reply-To: <44863438-26d3-b5f7-9a57-4585abc75004@msapiro.net>
References: <e28a3553-5f03-124e-e093-f0182d66fda6@jbcrawford.us>
 <d4b31123-2794-0c9f-c71d-e8c5b59aaaeb@msapiro.net>
 <65fe3144-e29b-cd68-4eb9-7737d8310f77@bmrb.wisc.edu>
 <161e303bb00.279b.34829ecd81cc2bdd3224b01fbb9f6e50@jbcrawford.us>
 <44863438-26d3-b5f7-9a57-4585abc75004@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <6adde5db-c681-1ed8-2fac-adb58e26d9f4@jbcrawford.us>


On 2018-03-01 12:50, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 03/01/2018 11:22 AM, Jesse B. Crawford wrote:
>> Yes, I can create rules by hand fine including as the mailman user.
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> We're not talking about creating rules. We're talking about creating
> queue files in /usr/local/mailman/qfiles/in/

Sorry, this was a typo (or perhaps rather a brain-o). I mean files.

>> I've also checked the ownership and group on both aliases and the
>> virtual domain map. I'm still wondering if postfix might be using the
>> wrong user or group but I'm not sure how best to test that.
> 
> 
> Postfix pipes the mail to "/usr/local/mailman/mail/mailman post
> listname" as the user and primary group of the owner of the aliases.db
> file in which it finds the alias. Presumably, the group is correct or
> the wrapper at /usr/local/mailman/mail/mailman would be complaining of a
> group mismatch error, and presumably this wrapper is SETGID and
> Mailman's group so that it actually runs with Mailman's group as
> effective group.>
> Thus, the error is still a mystery to me assuming that Mailman's group
> can create files in /usr/local/mailman/qfiles/in/

Yes, I was thinking that the group must be correct since there is logic
to check that. I have also manually checked that the mailman group can
create files there.

> One thing you might check is whether Mailman can create queue entries.
> You might run as the mailman user, Mailman's
> 
> bin/inject -l LISTNAME /path/to/file/containing/test/message
> 
> This will create an entry in /usr/local/mailman/qfiles/in/ and Mailman's
> processing of this will remove that and make entries in
> /usr/local/mailman/qfiles/out/ and /usr/local/mailman/qfiles/archive/
> which will in turn be processed and removed. Does all this work?

This works fine, and in fact the injected test message is processed and
sent out properly. This was after suing to the mailman user, which is
only in group mailman. I've also tried from unrelated users that I
placed in the mailman group, and still had it succeed. I've also tried
running /usr/local/mailman/mail/mailman as Postfix and etc. and that's
succeeded. This seems to be something quite specific about how postfix
is invoking the script.

The one idea I've thought of so far is a chroot issue since parts of
Postfix run chrooted, but my understanding is that the 'local' delivery
is not run in a chroot, and checking the postfix master.cf bears this
out as it is marked 'n' in the chroot column. I can see from the
logs/bounces that the local delivery binary is the one that's invoking
mailman and encountering the error.

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  1 22:31:50 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 19:31:50 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] 'Read-only file system' when processing posts
In-Reply-To: <6adde5db-c681-1ed8-2fac-adb58e26d9f4@jbcrawford.us>
References: <e28a3553-5f03-124e-e093-f0182d66fda6@jbcrawford.us>
 <d4b31123-2794-0c9f-c71d-e8c5b59aaaeb@msapiro.net>
 <65fe3144-e29b-cd68-4eb9-7737d8310f77@bmrb.wisc.edu>
 <161e303bb00.279b.34829ecd81cc2bdd3224b01fbb9f6e50@jbcrawford.us>
 <44863438-26d3-b5f7-9a57-4585abc75004@msapiro.net>
 <6adde5db-c681-1ed8-2fac-adb58e26d9f4@jbcrawford.us>
Message-ID: <50b22cf5-b95a-3953-8273-3f8149ddc079@msapiro.net>

On 03/01/2018 06:53 PM, Jesse B. Crawford wrote:
> 
> The one idea I've thought of so far is a chroot issue since parts of
> Postfix run chrooted, but my understanding is that the 'local' delivery
> is not run in a chroot, and checking the postfix master.cf bears this
> out as it is marked 'n' in the chroot column. I can see from the
> logs/bounces that the local delivery binary is the one that's invoking
> mailman and encountering the error.


Yes, and the documentation for 'local' is very clear that it will run
the command as the user that owns the aliases.db file.

The only thing I can think of is that when Postfix invokes the
/usr/local/mailman/mail/mailman command, the SETGID bit is not being
honored for some reason, but even if that were the case it should be
running as group mailman at that point anyway so the effective gid
should be Mailman's in any case.

It clearly has something to do with Postfix being somehow different from
everything else, but I'm at a loss to understand what that might be.

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

From pshute at nuw.org.au  Thu Mar  1 22:28:36 2018
From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 03:28:36 +0000
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Accept vs Approve wording on moderator pages
Message-ID: <5dacc4666bce4dffaeaa66c27f882a6d@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>

On the moderator summary page, the available options are Defer, Approve, Reject or Discard.

On the detail page, they're Defer, Accept, Reject or Discard.

Only a cosmetic difference, but perhaps someone could change one to match the other?

Peter Shute

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  1 23:23:48 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:23:48 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Accept vs Approve wording on moderator pages
In-Reply-To: <5dacc4666bce4dffaeaa66c27f882a6d@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>
References: <5dacc4666bce4dffaeaa66c27f882a6d@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>
Message-ID: <92aa05ce-5b3b-ddf6-6925-6ca1db1ba17a@msapiro.net>

On 03/01/2018 07:28 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
> On the moderator summary page, the available options are Defer, Approve, Reject or Discard.
> 
> On the detail page, they're Defer, Accept, Reject or Discard.
> 
> Only a cosmetic difference, but perhaps someone could change one to match the other?


This has come up before. See
<https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/266722> and
<https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+bug/266247>, the newer of which is
over 12 years old. I'm not sure why it's never been changed. Perhaps
because both of those ask for more, at least implicitly, and the 'more'
parts are not so easy.

Also, the person doing a lot of the maintenance at that time was
Japanese, and the Japanese message catalog translates both Approve and
Accept and even Accepts to the identical Japanese.

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

From heller at deepsoft.com  Fri Mar  2 07:47:20 2018
From: heller at deepsoft.com (Robert Heller)
Date: Fri,  2 Mar 2018 07:47:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Mailman-Users] 'Read-only file system' when processing posts
In-Reply-To: <50b22cf5-b95a-3953-8273-3f8149ddc079@msapiro.net>
References: <e28a3553-5f03-124e-e093-f0182d66fda6@jbcrawford.us> 
 <d4b31123-2794-0c9f-c71d-e8c5b59aaaeb@msapiro.net> 
 <65fe3144-e29b-cd68-4eb9-7737d8310f77@bmrb.wisc.edu> 
 <161e303bb00.279b.34829ecd81cc2bdd3224b01fbb9f6e50@jbcrawford.us> 
 <44863438-26d3-b5f7-9a57-4585abc75004@msapiro.net> 
 <6adde5db-c681-1ed8-2fac-adb58e26d9f4@jbcrawford.us> 
 <50b22cf5-b95a-3953-8273-3f8149ddc079@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <20180302124720.D7FBF26C496A@sharky3.deepsoft.com>

At Thu, 1 Mar 2018 19:31:50 -0800 Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> wrote:

> 
> On 03/01/2018 06:53 PM, Jesse B. Crawford wrote:
> > 
> > The one idea I've thought of so far is a chroot issue since parts of
> > Postfix run chrooted, but my understanding is that the 'local' delivery
> > is not run in a chroot, and checking the postfix master.cf bears this
> > out as it is marked 'n' in the chroot column. I can see from the
> > logs/bounces that the local delivery binary is the one that's invoking
> > mailman and encountering the error.
> 
> 
> Yes, and the documentation for 'local' is very clear that it will run
> the command as the user that owns the aliases.db file.
> 
> The only thing I can think of is that when Postfix invokes the
> /usr/local/mailman/mail/mailman command, the SETGID bit is not being
> honored for some reason, but even if that were the case it should be
> running as group mailman at that point anyway so the effective gid
> should be Mailman's in any case.
> 
> It clearly has something to do with Postfix being somehow different from
> everything else, but I'm at a loss to understand what that might be.
> 

One other thing to consider is SELinux...  If the SELinux contex is set wrong, 
you might have this sort of problem.

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller at deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                    

From mark at msapiro.net  Fri Mar  2 14:03:25 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 11:03:25 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Accept vs Approve wording on moderator pages
In-Reply-To: <5dacc4666bce4dffaeaa66c27f882a6d@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>
References: <5dacc4666bce4dffaeaa66c27f882a6d@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>
Message-ID: <b2688ee4-ce0a-f698-96c3-a5ab0a84fa34@msapiro.net>

On 03/01/2018 07:28 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
> On the moderator summary page, the available options are Defer, Approve, Reject or Discard.
> 
> On the detail page, they're Defer, Accept, Reject or Discard.
> 
> Only a cosmetic difference, but perhaps someone could change one to match the other?


OK, I'll "fix" it but I have a question.

On the summary page, the radio buttons are

(_('Defer'), _('Accept'), _('Reject'), _('Discard'))

and if it's a non-member post you have the option to add the sender "to
one of these sender filters:
(_('Accepts'), _('Holds'), _('Rejects'), _('Discards'))

and the filters are actually named
{accept|hold|reject|discard}_these_nonmembers. Thus it is pretty clear,
the change should be to change 'Approve' to 'Accept' on the detail page.

That is not my question. My question is the summary page also lists held
subscriptions and unsubscriptions and for these the buttons are

(_('Defer'), _('Approve'), _('Reject'), _('Discard'))

This seems consistent with subs and unsubs being held for moderator
approval, so I don't want to change it, but that leaves an inconsistency
on the summary page itself with (un)subs being "Approved" and messages
being "Accepted".

Is anyone bothered by this?

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

From cpz at tuunq.com  Fri Mar  2 21:38:27 2018
From: cpz at tuunq.com (Carl Zwanzig)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 18:38:27 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Accept vs Approve wording on moderator pages
In-Reply-To: <b2688ee4-ce0a-f698-96c3-a5ab0a84fa34@msapiro.net>
References: <5dacc4666bce4dffaeaa66c27f882a6d@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>
 <b2688ee4-ce0a-f698-96c3-a5ab0a84fa34@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <77e8f45b-89bc-b1c7-cc82-d8256d2bd8de@tuunq.com>

(This based on my understanding of modern English usage in the USA. YMMV)

On 3/2/2018 11:03 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> but that leaves an inconsistency on the summary page itself with (un)subs
> being "Approved" and messages being "Accepted".
That's not necessarily inconsistent. A subscription would be approved, with 
"approval" connoting a more active action than accept.

OTOH accept/reject for a message makes sense since the moderator is allowing 
the message ("accepting") for distribution, but that doesn't mean the 
moderator agrees with it's contents, only that it meets whatever guidelines 
the moderator is using.

approve 1. officially agree to or accept as satisfactory.
accept 1. consent to receive (a thing offered).

Later,

z!

From pshute at nuw.org.au  Sun Mar  4 16:30:49 2018
From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute)
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 21:30:49 +0000
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Accept vs Approve wording on moderator pages
In-Reply-To: <b2688ee4-ce0a-f698-96c3-a5ab0a84fa34@msapiro.net>
References: <5dacc4666bce4dffaeaa66c27f882a6d@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>
 <b2688ee4-ce0a-f698-96c3-a5ab0a84fa34@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <8c3bfb5e916c4e45b0116b9d1932871c@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>

Mark Sapiro wrote:

> Is anyone bothered by this?

Now that I know it has a history, I could become quite fond of it.

If it comes down to definitions of each word, I'm fine with either, although I generally talk to other moderators about approving messages and subscriptions rather than accepting.

Peter Shute

From Richard at Damon-Family.org  Sun Mar  4 16:54:58 2018
From: Richard at Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 16:54:58 -0500
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Accept vs Approve wording on moderator pages
In-Reply-To: <8c3bfb5e916c4e45b0116b9d1932871c@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>
References: <5dacc4666bce4dffaeaa66c27f882a6d@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>
 <b2688ee4-ce0a-f698-96c3-a5ab0a84fa34@msapiro.net>
 <8c3bfb5e916c4e45b0116b9d1932871c@NVSM1.nuw.org.au>
Message-ID: <0b28526a-fa28-d758-9fa2-ab9867bdd9b7@Damon-Family.org>

On 3/4/18 4:30 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
> Mark Sapiro wrote:
>
>> Is anyone bothered by this?
> Now that I know it has a history, I could become quite fond of it.
>
> If it comes down to definitions of each word, I'm fine with either, although I generally talk to other moderators about approving messages and subscriptions rather than accepting.
>
> Peter Shute
Yes, the terminology I am used to is that when you make the decision to 
release a message or allow a subscription, you are 'Approving' it (you 
may not agree with it, but you have decided that it passes all the 
requirements to be allowed on the list).

You can also put the person on the Accept list, which will remove the 
need for a moderator to Approve each of their messages and the list will 
just automatically Accept it (unless it falls under some filter that 
holds/rejects/discards it).

-- 
Richard Damon


From fmouse at fmp.com  Tue Mar  6 20:36:00 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 19:36:00 -0600
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Switching a list to port 443
Message-ID: <1520386560.55637.26.camel@fmp.com>

I have an installed list running?mailman-2.1.18-1 and just set up a SSL
cert from Let's Encrypt to run the site to which the list is attached
via https on port 443.

The list moderator emailed me noting that she was having trouble
clearing moderated posts, a problem which I verified, and changes to
some administrative options also fail.

It seems that, as I had it configured, Let's Encrypt's automated setup
uses an Apache RewriteRule to force http requests to https requests,
and at points in the Mailman admin menus, the system seems to want to
fall back to http requests, and forcing them, again, to rewrite these
internal URLs from http to https breaks things.

So what's the proper way to take a list that's been running via port 80
and make it run entirely via port 443?

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       | "The first casualty when
FMP Computer Services |         war comes is truth."
512-259-1190          |            
http://www.fmp.com    |     -- Hiram W Johnson


From fmouse at fmp.com  Tue Mar  6 20:50:57 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 19:50:57 -0600
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Switching a list to port 443
In-Reply-To: <1520386560.55637.26.camel@fmp.com>
References: <1520386560.55637.26.camel@fmp.com>
Message-ID: <1520387457.55637.34.camel@fmp.com>

On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 19:36 -0600, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> I have an installed list running?mailman-2.1.18-1 and just set up a SSL
> cert from Let's Encrypt to run the site to which the list is attached
> via https on port 443.
> 
> The list moderator emailed me noting that she was having trouble
> clearing moderated posts, a problem which I verified, and changes to
> some administrative options also fail.
> 
> It seems that, as I had it configured, Let's Encrypt's automated setup
> uses an Apache RewriteRule to force http requests to https requests,
> and at points in the Mailman admin menus, the system seems to want to
> fall back to http requests, and forcing these internal URLs, again,
> to be rewritten by the web server from http to https breaks things.
> 
> So what's the proper way to take a list that's been running via port 80
> and make it run entirely via port 443?

I've found?https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2003-April/027856.html
which is helpful, but apparently, at least with MM 2.1.1, it was
necessary to to set?DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN as a global setting. On FMP's
server, some lists are associated with sites that are accessed via port
80 and as yet I don't have SSL enabled for their domains, so I need to
be able to make this setting on a per-list basis.

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       | "The first casualty when
FMP Computer Services |         war comes is truth."
512-259-1190          |            
http://www.fmp.com    |     -- Hiram W Johnson


From mark at msapiro.net  Tue Mar  6 22:25:57 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:25:57 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Switching a list to port 443
In-Reply-To: <1520387457.55637.34.camel@fmp.com>
References: <1520386560.55637.26.camel@fmp.com>
 <1520387457.55637.34.camel@fmp.com>
Message-ID: <3063c14c-360c-db49-e074-d8a1f70f515a@msapiro.net>

On 3/6/18 5:50 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> 
> I've found?https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2003-April/027856.html
> which is helpful, but apparently, at least with MM 2.1.1, it was
> necessary to to set?DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN as a global setting. On FMP's
> server, some lists are associated with sites that are accessed via port
> 80 and as yet I don't have SSL enabled for their domains, so I need to
> be able to make this setting on a per-list basis.


There's a FAQ on this at <https://wiki.list.org/x/17892007>, but it
won't answer your question.

In your case you have various choices depending on what you want for new
lists going forward.

You need to set the 'final' scheme in DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN to what you
want for new lists.

For existing lists you want the scheme in the web_page_url to match what
you want for that list.

You can do this by setting the scheme in DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN to https
and then running fix_url under withlist for only those lists and then
setting the scheme in DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN to http if that's what you want.

Or you could just run the script at
<https://www.msapiro.net/scripts/https.py> under withlist for those
lists you want to change.

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

From fmouse at fmp.com  Wed Mar  7 11:29:57 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:29:57 -0600
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Switching a list to port 443
In-Reply-To: <3063c14c-360c-db49-e074-d8a1f70f515a@msapiro.net>
References: <1520386560.55637.26.camel@fmp.com>
 <1520387457.55637.34.camel@fmp.com>
 <3063c14c-360c-db49-e074-d8a1f70f515a@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <1520440197.55637.72.camel@fmp.com>

On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 19:25 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> Or you could just run the script at
> <https://www.msapiro.net/scripts/https.py> under withlist for those
> lists you want to change.

Mark, there appears to be a bit of an issue with this script. ?I've
changed the DEFAULT_URL_HOST to "www.fmp.com", and have recently added
add_virtualhost() call for this hostname as well, but after running
this script on several lists it seems that in some circumstances the
URL host is changed to a value of DEFAULT_URL_HOST which was in effect
when the list was created. Using fix_url has no such problems and seems
to fix everything.

I'm not entirely clear on this, and could tinker with it some more
(such as hacking the script to convert back to http) but I've resorted
to just editing mm_cfg.py and using fix_url which seems to do the right
thing.

Example ...

$ withlist -l -r https foo_members
Importing https...
Running https.https()...
Loading list foo_members (locked)
list: Foo_members: changed web_page_url to https://linode.fmp.com/mailman/
Finalizing

linode.fmp.com _was_ the DEFAULT_URL_HOST when the list was set up (but
not when 'withlist -r https ..' was run), but the list was explicitly
set up with newlist using a URL with "fmp.com" or "www.fmp.com" and
worked well. My wife admins the list and has had no problems. I would
_certainly_ have heard about it if she'd had to do a double login,
which would have been the case had "linode.fmp.com" been part of the
web_page_url when she worked on it.

Sorry I can't put more arms and legs on this problem. This is a
production server so the _real_ lists have to be converted quickly and
cleanly. I'll set up some test lists using my sandbox domain name and
see if I can pin the issue down. I didn't have add_virtualhost() method
calls for "fmp.com" and "www.fmp.com" _when the list was created_, so
the web_page_url may have been overwritten with the DEFAULT_URL_HOST in
effect at that time.

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       | "Real programmers use butterflies"
FMP Computer Services |
512-259-1190          |       - xkcd
http://www.fmp.com    |


From mark at msapiro.net  Wed Mar  7 11:40:21 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 08:40:21 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Switching a list to port 443
In-Reply-To: <1520440197.55637.72.camel@fmp.com>
References: <1520386560.55637.26.camel@fmp.com>
 <1520387457.55637.34.camel@fmp.com>
 <3063c14c-360c-db49-e074-d8a1f70f515a@msapiro.net>
 <1520440197.55637.72.camel@fmp.com>
Message-ID: <7d0ffa23-8903-6115-02cd-58c7b3818799@msapiro.net>

On 03/07/2018 08:29 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 19:25 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> Or you could just run the script at
>> <https://www.msapiro.net/scripts/https.py> under withlist for those
>> lists you want to change.
> 
> Mark, there appears to be a bit of an issue with this script. ?I've
> changed the DEFAULT_URL_HOST to "www.fmp.com", and have recently added
> add_virtualhost() call for this hostname as well, but after running
> this script on several lists it seems that in some circumstances the
> URL host is changed to a value of DEFAULT_URL_HOST which was in effect
> when the list was created. Using fix_url has no such problems and seems
> to fix everything.


I don't think that has anything to do with the script itself. All the
script does is change any occurrence of 'http:' to 'https:' in a list's
web_page_url.

The most likely explanation for what you observed is you never ran
fix_url on the affected lists after you changed DEFAULT_URL_HOST to
"www.fmp.com" so their web_page_url attribute still had the prior domain.

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

From fmouse at fmp.com  Wed Mar  7 12:18:02 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:18:02 -0600
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Switching a list to port 443
In-Reply-To: <7d0ffa23-8903-6115-02cd-58c7b3818799@msapiro.net>
References: <1520386560.55637.26.camel@fmp.com>
 <1520387457.55637.34.camel@fmp.com>
 <3063c14c-360c-db49-e074-d8a1f70f515a@msapiro.net>
 <1520440197.55637.72.camel@fmp.com>
 <7d0ffa23-8903-6115-02cd-58c7b3818799@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <1520443082.55637.86.camel@fmp.com>

On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 08:40 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> The most likely explanation for what you observed is you never ran
> fix_url on the affected lists after you changed DEFAULT_URL_HOST to
> "www.fmp.com" so their web_page_url attribute still had the prior
> domain.

I suppose it's possible, and certainly it was a misconfig on my part to
_not_ have an add_virtualhost call for "www.fmp.com". The web_page_url
in effect, though, seems to have been the one set with?
--urlhost when newlist was invoked to create the list, and after
running https.py the absence of an appropriate add_virtualhost() came
to the fore and the web_page_url was rewritten using the old
DEFAULT_URL_HOST, even though I'd added a proper add_virtualhost() by
the time I ran https.py.

Interesting, but not serious since the issue was identified and
remedied here in pretty short order :)

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       |  "Humor will get you through times of no humor
FMP Computer Services |      better than no humor will get you through
512-259-1190          |         times of humor."
http://www.fmp.com    |            - Butch Hancock


From List.Server.Admin at unh.edu  Wed Mar  7 13:31:56 2018
From: List.Server.Admin at unh.edu (The Mailing List Server Admin)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:31:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Mailman-Users] HELP! Just broke Mailman with a bogus list.
In-Reply-To: <CAKhfoy3Z5EiqG47j0-yreEsy9yFjDg2x62PiWqLoSS9H-dJkHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKhfoy3Z5EiqG47j0-yreEsy9yFjDg2x62PiWqLoSS9H-dJkHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.03.1803071327350.12240@conundrum.unh.edu>

I just added a new list where I wanted to experiment with the
topics feature.  But after adding the list, the list_lists
utility no longer works:

> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/home/mladmin/Util/MM2/list_lists", line 130, in <module>
>     main()
>   File "/home/mladmin/Util/MM2/list_lists", line 100, in main
>     mlist = MailList.MailList(n, lock=0)
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 131, in
>   __init__
>     self.Load()
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 698, in
>   Load
>     self.CheckValues()
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 780, in
>   CheckValues
>     for name, pattern, desc, emptyflag in self.topics:
> ValueError: too many values to unpack

And when I tried to delete the list, I got a similar error:

> $ ~mailman/bin/rmlist test.list.topics
> Not removing archives.  Reinvoke with -a to remove them.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/bin/rmlist", line 161, in <module>
>     main()
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/bin/rmlist", line 116, in main
>     mlist = MailList.MailList(listname, lock=0)
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 131, in
> __init__
>     self.Load()
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 698, in
> Load
>     self.CheckValues()
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 780, in
> CheckValues
>     for name, pattern, desc, emptyflag in self.topics:
> ValueError: too many values to unpack

I am assuming it is this last list that I added that is causing
the problem.  How can I back this out without using the rmlist
utility?

Using Mailman version: 2.1.20

-- 
                                   Cordially,
                                   the UNH Mailing List Server Admins
                                   Bill Costa, Adjunct Admin
                                   (603) 862-3056

From mark at msapiro.net  Wed Mar  7 18:45:42 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:45:42 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Switching a list to port 443
In-Reply-To: <1520443082.55637.86.camel@fmp.com>
References: <1520386560.55637.26.camel@fmp.com>
 <1520387457.55637.34.camel@fmp.com>
 <3063c14c-360c-db49-e074-d8a1f70f515a@msapiro.net>
 <1520440197.55637.72.camel@fmp.com>
 <7d0ffa23-8903-6115-02cd-58c7b3818799@msapiro.net>
 <1520443082.55637.86.camel@fmp.com>
Message-ID: <3f9542e5-a43f-7425-fe7f-188cd9f8c275@msapiro.net>

On 03/07/2018 09:18 AM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> 
> I suppose it's possible, and certainly it was a misconfig on my part to
> _not_ have an add_virtualhost call for "www.fmp.com". The web_page_url
> in effect, though, seems to have been the one set with?
> --urlhost when newlist was invoked to create the list, and after
> running https.py the absence of an appropriate add_virtualhost() came
> to the fore and the web_page_url was rewritten using the old
> DEFAULT_URL_HOST, even though I'd added a proper add_virtualhost() by
> the time I ran https.py.


whatever did it, it wasn't the script at
<https://www.msapiro.net/scripts/https.py>. The only thing that script
does is change 'http:' to 'https:' in a list's web_page_url and report
the new value. It doesn't touch the domain.

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

From mark at msapiro.net  Wed Mar  7 18:57:01 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:57:01 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] HELP! Just broke Mailman with a bogus list.
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.03.1803071327350.12240@conundrum.unh.edu>
References: <CAKhfoy3Z5EiqG47j0-yreEsy9yFjDg2x62PiWqLoSS9H-dJkHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.03.1803071327350.12240@conundrum.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <7e95ae80-ff24-b899-e559-ebd645d55775@msapiro.net>

On 03/07/2018 10:31 AM, The Mailing List Server Admin wrote:
> I just added a new list where I wanted to experiment with the
> topics feature.? But after adding the list, the list_lists
> utility no longer works:
> 
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> ? File "/home/mladmin/Util/MM2/list_lists", line 130, in <module>
>> ??? main()
>> ? File "/home/mladmin/Util/MM2/list_lists", line 100, in main
>> ??? mlist = MailList.MailList(n, lock=0)
>> ? File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 131, in
>> ? __init__
>> ??? self.Load()
>> ? File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 698, in
>> ? Load
>> ??? self.CheckValues()
>> ? File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 780, in
>> ? CheckValues
>> ??? for name, pattern, desc, emptyflag in self.topics:
>> ValueError: too many values to unpack


It is not clear what went wrong or how or why, but there is bad data in
this list's topics attribute.

To "fix" the problem just move the lists/LISTNAME directory containing
the config.pck and perhaps a few other files out of the lists/ directory.

However, I would be interested in knowing what's wrong and how it
happened. Unfortunately, this issue probably prevents even running
withlist on this list. I.e., Mailman's 'bin/withlist LISTNAME' will
probably throw the same error.

You could help me however by sending me off list the
lists/LISTNAME/config.pck and lists/LISTNAME/config.pck.last files, and
also, if you can recall, telling what you entered in the list's topics
that precipitated this.

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

From alex at spottedmouse.com  Thu Mar  8 00:26:47 2018
From: alex at spottedmouse.com (Alexander)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:26:47 +0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] User unknown error on gentoo
Message-ID: <b62acef5-4a5f-9717-b245-3cb2d4f896f8@spottedmouse.com>

Without including my domain explicitly under mydestination all virtual 
accounts work successfully, however mailman reports user unknown

Results in mailman list user unknown error
mydomain = XXX.com
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost

As suggested here 
(https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-134833-start-0.html) I added the 
domain explicitly
mydomain = XXX.com
mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost, XXX.com

Now mailman works, but all virtual users are rejected with unknown user

Any suggestion on how to support both vitual users and mailman lists.

So far I have included the following settings and verified the content 
of hte alias databases is correct:

alias_database = hash:/etc/mail/aliases, hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/mail/aliases, hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases
virtual_alias_maps = pgsql:/etc/postfix/pgsql_virtual_alias_maps.cf, 
hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/virtual-mailman

Thanks in advance


From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  8 00:53:17 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 21:53:17 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] User unknown error on gentoo
In-Reply-To: <b62acef5-4a5f-9717-b245-3cb2d4f896f8@spottedmouse.com>
References: <b62acef5-4a5f-9717-b245-3cb2d4f896f8@spottedmouse.com>
Message-ID: <8cc00c2d-9581-05c4-4941-82f8e7d1be3d@msapiro.net>

On 03/07/2018 09:26 PM, Alexander wrote:
> Without including my domain explicitly under mydestination all virtual
> accounts work successfully, however mailman reports user unknown
> 
> Results in mailman list user unknown error
> mydomain = XXX.com
> mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost
> 
> As suggested here
> (https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-134833-start-0.html) I added the
> domain explicitly
> mydomain = XXX.com
> mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost, XXX.com
> 
> Now mailman works, but all virtual users are rejected with unknown user
> 
> Any suggestion on how to support both vitual users and mailman lists.


Please post the output from 'postconf -n'. Also specific Postfix log
messages might be helpful. as well as a sample of the content of
/var/lib/mailman/data/virtual-mailman

If XXX.com is a virtual_alias_domain or a virtual_mailbox_domain, it
shouldn't be in my_destination.

If you have XXX.com in virtual_alias_domains and your list addresses are
mapped from lisname at XXX.com to listname in virtual-mailman, it should
work. What is the Postfix error message in this case?

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

From alex at spottedmouse.com  Thu Mar  8 02:34:38 2018
From: alex at spottedmouse.com (Alexander)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:34:38 +0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] User unknown error on gentoo
In-Reply-To: <8cc00c2d-9581-05c4-4941-82f8e7d1be3d@msapiro.net>
References: <b62acef5-4a5f-9717-b245-3cb2d4f896f8@spottedmouse.com>
 <8cc00c2d-9581-05c4-4941-82f8e7d1be3d@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <0c719f12-5289-520c-f9ab-585a35b957a2@spottedmouse.com>

On 08/03/2018 13:53, Mark Sapiro wrote:> On 03/07/2018 09:26 PM, 
Alexander wrote:
 >> Without including my domain explicitly under mydestination all virtual
 >> accounts work successfully, however mailman reports user unknown
 >>
 >> Results in mailman list user unknown error
 >> mydomain = XXX.com
 >> mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost
 >>
 >> As suggested here
 >> (https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-134833-start-0.html) I added the
 >> domain explicitly
 >> mydomain = XXX.com
 >> mydestination = $myhostname, localhost.$mydomain, localhost, XXX.com
 >>
 >> Now mailman works, but all virtual users are rejected with unknown user
 >>
 >> Any suggestion on how to support both vitual users and mailman lists.
 >
 > Please post the output from 'postconf -n'. Also specific Postfix log
 > messages might be helpful.

postconf -n |grep mailman
alias_database = hash:/etc/mail/aliases, hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases
alias_maps = hash:/etc/mail/aliases, hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/aliases
virtual_alias_maps = pgsql:/etc/postfix/pgsql_virtual_alias_maps.cf, 
hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/virtual-mailman

postconf -n |grep virtual
virtual_alias_maps = pgsql:/etc/postfix/pgsql_virtual_alias_maps.cf, 
hash:/var/lib/mailman/data/virtual-mailman
virtual_gid_maps = static:1001
virtual_mailbox_base = /home/vmail
virtual_mailbox_domains = pgsql:/etc/postfix/pgsql_virtual_domains_maps.cf
virtual_mailbox_limit = 51200000
virtual_mailbox_maps = pgsql:/etc/postfix/pgsql_virtual_mailbox_maps.cf
virtual_transport = virtual
virtual_uid_maps = static:1001

 > as well as a sample of the content of 
/var/lib/mailman/data/virtual-mailman# STANZA START: mailman
# CREATED: Thu Feb 22 22:07:59 2018
mailman at XXX.com????????????? mailman at XXX.com
mailman-admin at XXX.com??????? mailman-admin at XXX.com
mailman-bounces at XXX.com????? mailman-bounces at XXX.com
mailman-confirm at XXX.com????? mailman-confirm at XXX.com
mailman-join at XXX.com???????? mailman-join at XXX.com
mailman-leave at XXX.com??????? mailman-leave at XXX.com
mailman-owner at XXX.com??????? mailman-owner at XXX.com
mailman-request at XXX.com????? mailman-request at XXX.com
mailman-subscribe at XXX.com??? mailman-subscribe at XXX.com
mailman-unsubscribe at XXX.com? mailman-unsubscribe at XXX.com
# STANZA END: mailman

# STANZA START: 704staff
# CREATED: Thu Feb 22 22:07:59 2018
704staff at XXX.com????????????? 704staff at XXX.com
704staff-admin at XXX.com??????? 704staff-admin at XXX.com
704staff-bounces at XXX.com????? 704staff-bounces at XXX.com
704staff-confirm at XXX.com????? 704staff-confirm at XXX.com
704staff-join at XXX.com???????? 704staff-join at XXX.com
704staff-leave at XXX.com??????? 704staff-leave at XXX.com
704staff-owner at XXX.com??????? 704staff-owner at XXX.com
704staff-request at XXX.com????? 704staff-request at XXX.com
704staff-subscribe at XXX.com??? 704staff-subscribe at XXX.com
704staff-unsubscribe at XXX.com? 704staff-unsubscribe at XXX.com
# STANZA END: 704staff

 >
 > If XXX.com is a virtual_alias_domain or a virtual_mailbox_domain, it 
shouldn't be in my_destination.XXX.com is used for both local system 
accounts as well as virtual accounts.

virtual_mailbox_domains contains XXX.com.

 > If you have XXX.com in virtual_alias_domains and your list addresses are
 > mapped from lisname at XXX.com to listname in virtual-mailman, it should
 > work. What is the Postfix error message in this case?

The bounce back reports:
<704staff at XXX.com>: unknown user: "704staff at XXX.com"

And the log reports:
postfix/virtual[16361]: 45CCE460281: to=<704staff at XXX.com>, 
relay=virtual, delay=0.16, delays=0.09/0.01/0/0.07, dsn=5.1.1, 
status=bounced (unknown user: "704staff at XXX.com")





 >


From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  8 02:48:24 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 23:48:24 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] User unknown error on gentoo
In-Reply-To: <0c719f12-5289-520c-f9ab-585a35b957a2@spottedmouse.com>
References: <b62acef5-4a5f-9717-b245-3cb2d4f896f8@spottedmouse.com>
 <8cc00c2d-9581-05c4-4941-82f8e7d1be3d@msapiro.net>
 <0c719f12-5289-520c-f9ab-585a35b957a2@spottedmouse.com>
Message-ID: <d75340a4-bdb2-8d02-a7e9-f4b9e8b5ae55@msapiro.net>

On 03/07/2018 11:34 PM, Alexander wrote:
> On 08/03/2018 13:53, Mark Sapiro wrote:> On 03/07/2018 09:26 PM,

>> as well as a sample of the content of
> /var/lib/mailman/data/virtual-mailman# STANZA START: mailman
> # CREATED: Thu Feb 22 22:07:59 2018
> mailman at XXX.com????????????? mailman at XXX.com
> mailman-admin at XXX.com??????? mailman-admin at XXX.com
> mailman-bounces at XXX.com????? mailman-bounces at XXX.com
> mailman-confirm at XXX.com????? mailman-confirm at XXX.com
> mailman-join at XXX.com???????? mailman-join at XXX.com
> mailman-leave at XXX.com??????? mailman-leave at XXX.com
> mailman-owner at XXX.com??????? mailman-owner at XXX.com
> mailman-request at XXX.com????? mailman-request at XXX.com
> mailman-subscribe at XXX.com??? mailman-subscribe at XXX.com
> mailman-unsubscribe at XXX.com? mailman-unsubscribe at XXX.com
> # STANZA END: mailman
> 
> # STANZA START: 704staff
> # CREATED: Thu Feb 22 22:07:59 2018
> 704staff at XXX.com????????????? 704staff at XXX.com
> 704staff-admin at XXX.com??????? 704staff-admin at XXX.com
> 704staff-bounces at XXX.com????? 704staff-bounces at XXX.com
> 704staff-confirm at XXX.com????? 704staff-confirm at XXX.com
> 704staff-join at XXX.com???????? 704staff-join at XXX.com
> 704staff-leave at XXX.com??????? 704staff-leave at XXX.com.
> 704staff-owner at XXX.com??????? 704staff-owner at XXX.com
> 704staff-request at XXX.com????? 704staff-request at XXX.com
> 704staff-subscribe at XXX.com??? 704staff-subscribe at XXX.com
> 704staff-unsubscribe at XXX.com? 704staff-unsubscribe at XXX.com
> # STANZA END: 704staff


I think this is the issue. It appears you have set

VIRTUAL_MAILMAN_LOCAL_DOMAIN = 'XXX.com'

in mm_cfg.py. This is wrong. It is usually OK to not set this in
mm_cfg.py and leave it at the default None, but if you have to set it,
you need to set it to something in mydestination such as 'localhost'.
I.e. it MUST be a local domain, not a virtual domain.

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

From alex at spottedmouse.com  Thu Mar  8 03:41:54 2018
From: alex at spottedmouse.com (Alexander)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 16:41:54 +0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] User unknown error on gentoo
In-Reply-To: <d75340a4-bdb2-8d02-a7e9-f4b9e8b5ae55@msapiro.net>
References: <b62acef5-4a5f-9717-b245-3cb2d4f896f8@spottedmouse.com>
 <8cc00c2d-9581-05c4-4941-82f8e7d1be3d@msapiro.net>
 <0c719f12-5289-520c-f9ab-585a35b957a2@spottedmouse.com>
 <d75340a4-bdb2-8d02-a7e9-f4b9e8b5ae55@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <b1293ed5-2ad5-db59-b5f5-4a68add1c0e8@spottedmouse.com>

Thanks. this resolved my problem


On 08/03/2018 15:48, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 03/07/2018 11:34 PM, Alexander wrote:
>> On 08/03/2018 13:53, Mark Sapiro wrote:> On 03/07/2018 09:26 PM,
>>> as well as a sample of the content of
>> /var/lib/mailman/data/virtual-mailman# STANZA START: mailman
>> # CREATED: Thu Feb 22 22:07:59 2018
>> mailman at XXX.com????????????? mailman at XXX.com
>> mailman-admin at XXX.com??????? mailman-admin at XXX.com
>> mailman-bounces at XXX.com????? mailman-bounces at XXX.com
>> mailman-confirm at XXX.com????? mailman-confirm at XXX.com
>> mailman-join at XXX.com???????? mailman-join at XXX.com
>> mailman-leave at XXX.com??????? mailman-leave at XXX.com
>> mailman-owner at XXX.com??????? mailman-owner at XXX.com
>> mailman-request at XXX.com????? mailman-request at XXX.com
>> mailman-subscribe at XXX.com??? mailman-subscribe at XXX.com
>> mailman-unsubscribe at XXX.com? mailman-unsubscribe at XXX.com
>> # STANZA END: mailman
>>
>> # STANZA START: 704staff
>> # CREATED: Thu Feb 22 22:07:59 2018
>> 704staff at XXX.com????????????? 704staff at XXX.com
>> 704staff-admin at XXX.com??????? 704staff-admin at XXX.com
>> 704staff-bounces at XXX.com????? 704staff-bounces at XXX.com
>> 704staff-confirm at XXX.com????? 704staff-confirm at XXX.com
>> 704staff-join at XXX.com???????? 704staff-join at XXX.com
>> 704staff-leave at XXX.com??????? 704staff-leave at XXX.com.
>> 704staff-owner at XXX.com??????? 704staff-owner at XXX.com
>> 704staff-request at XXX.com????? 704staff-request at XXX.com
>> 704staff-subscribe at XXX.com??? 704staff-subscribe at XXX.com
>> 704staff-unsubscribe at XXX.com? 704staff-unsubscribe at XXX.com
>> # STANZA END: 704staff
>
> I think this is the issue. It appears you have set
>
> VIRTUAL_MAILMAN_LOCAL_DOMAIN = 'XXX.com'
>
> in mm_cfg.py. This is wrong. It is usually OK to not set this in
> mm_cfg.py and leave it at the default None, but if you have to set it,
> you need to set it to something in mydestination such as 'localhost'.
> I.e. it MUST be a local domain, not a virtual domain.
>


From List.Server.Admin at unh.edu  Thu Mar  8 09:22:36 2018
From: List.Server.Admin at unh.edu (The Mailing List Server Admin)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:22:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Mailman-Users] HELP! Just broke Mailman with a bogus list.
In-Reply-To: <7e95ae80-ff24-b899-e559-ebd645d55775@msapiro.net>
References: <CAKhfoy3Z5EiqG47j0-yreEsy9yFjDg2x62PiWqLoSS9H-dJkHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.03.1803071327350.12240@conundrum.unh.edu>
 <7e95ae80-ff24-b899-e559-ebd645d55775@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.03.1803080904050.9243@conundrum.unh.edu>

Mark Sapiro recently wrote...

> I would be interested in knowing what's wrong and how it
> happened. Unfortunately, this issue probably prevents even
> running withlist on this list. I.e., Mailman's 'bin/withlist
> LISTNAME' will probably throw the same error.

It does.  I did try compiling the original configuration file I
used to create the list and there were no syntax errors.  But
then I would expect a config file with syntax errors not to be
accepted when creating a new list.

> To "fix" the problem just move the lists/LISTNAME directory
> containing the config.pck and perhaps a few other files out of
> the lists/ directory.

That worked and was my first instinct, but I didn't know if that
might cause other issues -- having a list directory that Mailman
was 'expecting' to suddenly be gone.  In any case, moving the
list's own subdirectory out of `~mailman/lists` directory got the
`list_lists` command line and `mailman/listinfo` web page working
again.

So the good news is that it was definitely this new list that
threw a spanner into the machinery, and not some other mysterious
event.

Thanks for the fix.  The files you requested are on the way.

-- 
                                   Cordially,
                                   the UNH Mailing List Server Admins
                                   Bill Costa, Adjunct Admin
                                   (603) 862-3056

From fmouse at fmp.com  Thu Mar  8 14:32:58 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:32:58 -0600
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Switching a list to port 443
In-Reply-To: <7d0ffa23-8903-6115-02cd-58c7b3818799@msapiro.net>
References: <1520386560.55637.26.camel@fmp.com>
 <1520387457.55637.34.camel@fmp.com>
 <3063c14c-360c-db49-e074-d8a1f70f515a@msapiro.net>
 <1520440197.55637.72.camel@fmp.com>
 <7d0ffa23-8903-6115-02cd-58c7b3818799@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <1520537578.125910.0.camel@fmp.com>

On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 08:40 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> The most likely explanation for what you observed is you never ran
> fix_url on the affected lists after you changed DEFAULT_URL_HOST to
> "www.fmp.com" so their web_page_url attribute still had the prior
> domain.

I suppose it's possible, and certainly it was a misconfiguration on my
part to _not_ have an add_virtualhost call for "www.fmp.com". The
web_page_url in effect, though, seems to have been the one set with?
--urlhost when newlist was invoked to create the list, and after
running https.py the absence of an appropriate add_virtualhost() came
to the fore and the web_page_url was rewritten using the old
DEFAULT_URL_HOST, even though I'd added a proper add_virtualhost() by
the time I ran https.py.

Interesting, but not serious since the issue was identified and
remedied in pretty short order :)

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       |  "Humor will get you through times of no humor
FMP Computer Services |      better than no humor will get you through
512-259-1190          |         times of humor."
http://www.fmp.com    |            - Butch Hancock


From raj at mischievous.us  Thu Mar  8 19:22:27 2018
From: raj at mischievous.us (Richard Johnson)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 16:22:27 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] How to remove "cc" of sender but retain "sender"?
Message-ID: <64DDA919-6FA1-4035-8FBC-73B134C9D23E@mischievous.us>

Hi!  I hope this isn't just a matter of my not having searched enough!  I searched through all of the configuration I see, but didn't find a way to configure a mailing list to (1) set the "From" as the list address, while also (2) NOT including the sender in to any "CC" list, and instead including the sender in a "Sender" header.  Why do I want this?  I want all replies to go back to the list, but without any CC's going back to the sender, and while still retaining enough Sender information so that people can see from whom the message originated.

Maybe there's some better way or some good reason why I really don't want this?

(What I'm seeing is that some mail user agents will sometimes include the sender of the message to which they are replying as well as their own address into a "CC" list.  I'm hoping to avoid the duplicate messages, if possible.)

/raj


From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  8 20:51:51 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:51:51 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] How to remove "cc" of sender but retain
 "sender"?
In-Reply-To: <64DDA919-6FA1-4035-8FBC-73B134C9D23E@mischievous.us>
References: <64DDA919-6FA1-4035-8FBC-73B134C9D23E@mischievous.us>
Message-ID: <239ebfed-7189-811a-cbdb-f9921024a1db@msapiro.net>

On 03/08/2018 04:22 PM, Richard Johnson wrote:
> Hi!  I hope this isn't just a matter of my not having searched enough!  I searched through all of the configuration I see, but didn't find a way to configure a mailing list to (1) set the "From" as the list address, while also (2) NOT including the sender in to any "CC" list, and instead including the sender in a "Sender" header.  Why do I want this?  I want all replies to go back to the list, but without any CC's going back to the sender, and while still retaining enough Sender information so that people can see from whom the message originated.


You can't do it without modifying code.

The things that come closest are:

1) first_strip_reply_to = Yes
   reply_goes_to_list = This List
   from_is_list = Munge From

This sets the list in both From: and Reply-To: but also puts the
original From: in Cc:

2) anonymous_list = yes

This sets the list in From: but hides the original sender completely.


> Maybe there's some better way or some good reason why I really don't want this?
> 
> (What I'm seeing is that some mail user agents will sometimes include the sender of the message to which they are replying as well as their own address into a "CC" list.  I'm hoping to avoid the duplicate messages, if possible.)


Even if you did modify the code to do what you say you want, you'll find
that some MUAs will reply to the Sender: and others will make it
difficult or impossible to see the Sender: at all.

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

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar  8 20:56:42 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:56:42 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] How to remove "cc" of sender but retain
 "sender"?
In-Reply-To: <239ebfed-7189-811a-cbdb-f9921024a1db@msapiro.net>
References: <64DDA919-6FA1-4035-8FBC-73B134C9D23E@mischievous.us>
 <239ebfed-7189-811a-cbdb-f9921024a1db@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <cf95471e-9018-21f7-b9c1-0ee85b0863fb@msapiro.net>

On 03/08/2018 05:51 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> 
> The things that come closest are:
> 
> 1) first_strip_reply_to = Yes
>    reply_goes_to_list = This List
>    from_is_list = Munge From
> 
> This sets the list in both From: and Reply-To: but also puts the
> original From: in Cc:
> 
> 2) anonymous_list = yes
> 
> This sets the list in From: but hides the original sender completely.


and 3) first_strip_reply_to = Yes
       reply_goes_to_list = Poster
       from_is_list = Munge From

Which is like 1) except the original From: is in Reply-To: rather than Cc:

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

From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net  Thu Mar  8 22:10:13 2018
From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 20:10:13 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] How to remove "cc" of sender but retain
 "sender"?
In-Reply-To: <64DDA919-6FA1-4035-8FBC-73B134C9D23E@mischievous.us>
References: <64DDA919-6FA1-4035-8FBC-73B134C9D23E@mischievous.us>
Message-ID: <c29d8fbc-b9db-23f4-4d0a-e537eef8c90f@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>

On 03/08/2018 05:22 PM, Richard Johnson wrote:
> (1) set the "From" as the list address, while also (2) NOT including 
> the sender in to any "CC" list, and instead including the sender in a 
> "Sender" header.

That really sounds like something that I would tackle with Procmail or a 
specially written filter (Perl or Python).

1)  Extract and save the From:.
2)  Remove all To: / From: / CC: headers
3)  Add a new To: set to the list.
4)  Add a new Sender: set to the saved From:.

Aside:  I'd likely also remove other headers that tend to break things, 
like DKIM* / Authentication* / et al.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


From mailinglisten at wbock.de  Sat Mar 10 17:06:03 2018
From: mailinglisten at wbock.de (Wolfgang Bock)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 23:06:03 +0100
Subject: [Mailman-Users] mailman3-core installation on debian
 stretch/maria-db
In-Reply-To: <CALgo3FC5uK+AsMidi7sdrYKgn7kEWQ3yJPA_Z5QhsmR19UtNTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALgo3FD9BMf1-NLrsx2bhASBn70yXnQZ6X_rN_m7i46ggP3QbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <574cc618-e0d9-e6fd-7d98-931cb2396a0b@asynchronous.in>
 <CALgo3FDhWjZ2vhK52ng2YOT0MosTiAPnDtDDA4uZeFnpy1a2Kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1520616035.1101893.1297568496.31C91A1A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CALgo3FC5uK+AsMidi7sdrYKgn7kEWQ3yJPA_Z5QhsmR19UtNTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <573f6f66-c396-d436-f22d-2ab540c7cec5@wbock.de>


 ?Hi,

I need your help: I installed mailman3 on a debian stretch environment 
and faced following problems.

1. On "mailman start" I got the error message:
Starting Mailman's master runner
/usr/bin/python3: can't open file '/sbin/master': [Errno 2] No such file 
or directory

2. connection to maria-db
In debian stretch maria-db is running. In my mailman.cfg I set:
[database]
class: mailman.database.mysql.MySQLDatabase
url: 
mysql+pmysql://#username#:#user-pawo#@localhost/#databasename#?charset=utf8&use_unicode=1

This produces as errormessage:
sqlalchemy.exc.NoSuchModuleError: Can't load plugin: 
sqlalchemy.dialects:mysql.pmysql

On mailman start the error message is:
 ?File "/usr/local/bin/mailman", line 11, in <module>
 ??? sys.exit(main())
 ? File "/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/mailman/bin/mailman.py", 
line 94, in main
 ??? initialize(config_path)
 ? File 
"/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/mailman/core/initialize.py", 
line 189, in initialize
 ??? initialize_2(propagate_logs=propagate_logs)
 ? File 
"/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/mailman/core/initialize.py", 
line 160, in initialize_2
 ??? config.db = getUtility(IDatabaseFactory, utility_name).create()
 ? File 
"/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/mailman/database/factory.py", 
line 54, in create
 ??? database.initialize()
 ? File 
"/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/mailman/database/base.py", line 
106, in initialize
 ??? self.engine = create_engine(url, isolation_level='READ UNCOMMITTED')
 ? File 
"/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/__init__.py", 
line 424, in create_engine
 ??? return strategy.create(*args, **kwargs)
 ? File 
"/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/strategies.py", 
line 57, in create
 ??? entrypoint = u._get_entrypoint()
 ? File 
"/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/sqlalchemy/engine/url.py", line 
156, in _get_entrypoint
 ??? cls = registry.load(name)
 ? File 
"/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/sqlalchemy/util/langhelpers.py", 
line 221, in load
 ??? (self.group, name))
sqlalchemy.exc.NoSuchModuleError: Can't load plugin: 
sqlalchemy.dialects:mysql.pmysql


Can You help??


Regards Wolfgang




From mark at msapiro.net  Sat Mar 10 17:22:00 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:22:00 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] mailman3-core installation on debian
 stretch/maria-db
In-Reply-To: <573f6f66-c396-d436-f22d-2ab540c7cec5@wbock.de>
References: <CALgo3FD9BMf1-NLrsx2bhASBn70yXnQZ6X_rN_m7i46ggP3QbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <574cc618-e0d9-e6fd-7d98-931cb2396a0b@asynchronous.in>
 <CALgo3FDhWjZ2vhK52ng2YOT0MosTiAPnDtDDA4uZeFnpy1a2Kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1520616035.1101893.1297568496.31C91A1A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CALgo3FC5uK+AsMidi7sdrYKgn7kEWQ3yJPA_Z5QhsmR19UtNTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <573f6f66-c396-d436-f22d-2ab540c7cec5@wbock.de>
Message-ID: <b9e751df-e175-2f64-86c0-b6622197cda6@msapiro.net>

On 03/10/2018 02:06 PM, Wolfgang Bock wrote:
> 
> ?Hi,
> 
> I need your help: I installed mailman3 on a debian stretch environment
> and faced following problems.


The appropriate list for Mailman 3 user issues is
mailman-users at mailman3.org
<https://lists.mailman3.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.mailman3.org/>.
This post was also sent to that list and will be answered there.

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

From pshute at nuw.org.au  Sun Mar 11 03:58:46 2018
From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute)
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 07:58:46 +0000
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Approving often fails and displays wrong page
Message-ID: <789A2D66-B847-44DA-9A1E-24CD24CF41B6@nuw.org.au>

We?ve found recently that more often than not when we approve a message from its details view, after we click Submit, it goes to another page that?s not part of mailman. It goes to the root of our cpanel, ie same url minus the /mailman/... part, but displays the correct url in the address bar. We can reliably approve messages from the summary page.

Is this a mailman fault? Cpanel fault? DNS?

Whatever it is, it doesn?t do it for every message. Sometimes the message will be approved properly, and it?ll return to the summary view. When it does go wrong, even repeating it 10 times still fails, so it appears to be somehow triggered by particular messages. And that also discounts a DNS fault?

We have long had an issue where it displays a 404 error when we try to approve, but that was rare. This problem happens for most messages.

Ideas for diagnosis?

Peter Shute

Sent from my iPad

From cpz at tuunq.com  Sun Mar 11 13:03:06 2018
From: cpz at tuunq.com (Carl Zwanzig)
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:03:06 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Approving often fails and displays wrong page
In-Reply-To: <789A2D66-B847-44DA-9A1E-24CD24CF41B6@nuw.org.au>
References: <789A2D66-B847-44DA-9A1E-24CD24CF41B6@nuw.org.au>
Message-ID: <fd36e6eb-a6ff-8c10-429b-3af744b64061@tuunq.com>

On 3/10/2018 11:58 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
> We?ve found recently that more often than not when we approve a message
> from its details view, after we click Submit, it goes to another page
> that?s not part of mailman. It goes to the root of our cpanel, ie same
> url minus the/mailman/... part, but displays the correct url in the
> address bar. We can reliably approve messages from the summary page.

Sounds sort of like a rogue load balancer, caching system, or some kind of 
URL rewrite filter in the way.

z!

From mark at msapiro.net  Sun Mar 11 21:57:53 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 18:57:53 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Approving often fails and displays wrong page
In-Reply-To: <fd36e6eb-a6ff-8c10-429b-3af744b64061@tuunq.com>
References: <789A2D66-B847-44DA-9A1E-24CD24CF41B6@nuw.org.au>
 <fd36e6eb-a6ff-8c10-429b-3af744b64061@tuunq.com>
Message-ID: <ee16591c-259e-78de-5a9e-216a1ec4fd84@msapiro.net>

On 03/11/2018 10:03 AM, Carl Zwanzig wrote:
> On 3/10/2018 11:58 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
>> We?ve found recently that more often than not when we approve a message
>> from its details view, after we click Submit, it goes to another page
>> that?s not part of mailman. It goes to the root of our cpanel, ie same
>> url minus the/mailman/... part, but displays the correct url in the
>> address bar. We can reliably approve messages from the summary page.
> 
> Sounds sort of like a rogue load balancer, caching system, or some kind
> of URL rewrite filter in the way.


I agree with Carl. I have no idea what the actual issue is, but given
that the result has something like
http://example.com/mailman/admindb/list_example.com in the address bar
but the content displayed is as if the browser had done a 'GET /' would
seem to say either the browser is broken - very unlikely and easily
confirmed by trying a different browser - or something between the
browser and the ultimate web server is the cause.

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

From pshute at nuw.org.au  Sun Mar 11 23:43:01 2018
From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 03:43:01 +0000
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Approving often fails and displays wrong page
In-Reply-To: <ee16591c-259e-78de-5a9e-216a1ec4fd84@msapiro.net>
References: <789A2D66-B847-44DA-9A1E-24CD24CF41B6@nuw.org.au>
 <fd36e6eb-a6ff-8c10-429b-3af744b64061@tuunq.com>,
 <ee16591c-259e-78de-5a9e-216a1ec4fd84@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <04F4FF9C-1FE7-4967-B6A6-138A01D4D5F4@nuw.org.au>

It?s happening to multiple moderators on multiple devices with independent internet connections, so it sounds like we need to ask our server provider to look into it.

Thanks,
Peter Shute

Sent from my iPhone

> On 12 Mar 2018, at 12:58 pm, Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/11/2018 10:03 AM, Carl Zwanzig wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2018 11:58 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
>>> We?ve found recently that more often than not when we approve a message
>>> from its details view, after we click Submit, it goes to another page
>>> that?s not part of mailman. It goes to the root of our cpanel, ie same
>>> url minus the/mailman/... part, but displays the correct url in the
>>> address bar. We can reliably approve messages from the summary page.
>> 
>> Sounds sort of like a rogue load balancer, caching system, or some kind
>> of URL rewrite filter in the way.
> 
> 
> I agree with Carl. I have no idea what the actual issue is, but given
> that the result has something like
> http://example.com/mailman/admindb/list_example.com in the address bar
> but the content displayed is as if the browser had done a 'GET /' would
> seem to say either the browser is broken - very unlikely and easily
> confirmed by trying a different browser - or something between the
> browser and the ultimate web server is the cause.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
> San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/pshute%40nuw.org.au

From davekm3t at gmail.com  Mon Mar 12 18:33:36 2018
From: davekm3t at gmail.com (Dave Pascoe)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:33:36 -0400
Subject: [Mailman-Users] send_digests() issue w/ Mailman 2.1.26
Message-ID: <CAH5r4X-y6ypEWhEYKm4dDqGc1edoKPdWF81ZMdB3r49dYkA4pA@mail.gmail.com>

Sending digests has broken on upgrade to either 2.1.25 or 2.1.26....2.1.26
I'm pretty sure.

Getting this error:

Mar 12 17:50:55 2018 (17857) send_digests() failed: decode() takes no
keyword arguments
Mar 12 17:50:55 2018 (17857) Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py", line 110, in
process
    send_digests(mlist, mboxfp)
  File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py", line 158, in
send_digests
    send_i18n_digests(mlist, mboxfp)
  File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py", line 313, in
send_i18n_digests
    toctext = to_cset_out(toc.getvalue(), lcset)
  File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py", line 77, in
to_cset_out
    return text.decode(lcset, errors='replace').encode(ocset,
TypeError: decode() takes no keyword arguments

This is on a soon-to-be-upgraded CentOS 5 system so Python 2.4.3. Any quick
fix for ToDigest.py to make it temporarily compatible with Python 2.4.3?

TIA,
Dave

From mark at msapiro.net  Mon Mar 12 19:10:56 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:10:56 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] send_digests() issue w/ Mailman 2.1.26
In-Reply-To: <CAH5r4X-y6ypEWhEYKm4dDqGc1edoKPdWF81ZMdB3r49dYkA4pA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5r4X-y6ypEWhEYKm4dDqGc1edoKPdWF81ZMdB3r49dYkA4pA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <94942de3-67ff-ff4b-6c14-4a017c6d28bf@msapiro.net>

On 03/12/2018 03:33 PM, Dave Pascoe wrote:
> Sending digests has broken on upgrade to either 2.1.25 or 2.1.26....2.1.26
> I'm pretty sure.
> 
> Getting this error:
> 
> Mar 12 17:50:55 2018 (17857) send_digests() failed: decode() takes no
> keyword arguments
> Mar 12 17:50:55 2018 (17857) Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py", line 110, in
> process
>     send_digests(mlist, mboxfp)
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py", line 158, in
> send_digests
>     send_i18n_digests(mlist, mboxfp)
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py", line 313, in
> send_i18n_digests
>     toctext = to_cset_out(toc.getvalue(), lcset)
>   File "/usr/local/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToDigest.py", line 77, in
> to_cset_out
>     return text.decode(lcset, errors='replace').encode(ocset,
> TypeError: decode() takes no keyword arguments
> 
> This is on a soon-to-be-upgraded CentOS 5 system so Python 2.4.3. Any quick
> fix for ToDigest.py to make it temporarily compatible with Python 2.4.3?


As you surmise, you have discovered another Python dependency. This was
introduced in 2.1.24 and depends on Python 2.7.

The fix for Python 2.3 - 2.6 is simple. Part of the added code in
Handlers/ToDigest.py is:

> def to_cset_out(text, lcset):
>     # Convert text from unicode or lcset to output cset.
>     ocset = Charset(lcset).get_output_charset() or lcset
>     if isinstance(text, unicode):
>         return text.encode(ocset, errors='replace')
>     else:
>         return text.decode(lcset, errors='replace').encode(ocset,
>                                                            errors='replace')

In both of the return statements, just delete errors= so it becomes

> def to_cset_out(text, lcset):
>     # Convert text from unicode or lcset to output cset.
>     ocset = Charset(lcset).get_output_charset() or lcset
>     if isinstance(text, unicode):
>         return text.encode(ocset, 'replace')
>     else:
>         return text.decode(lcset, 'replace').encode(ocset, 'replace')

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

From Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de  Fri Mar 16 07:37:04 2018
From: Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de (Sebastian Hagedorn)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:37:04 +0100
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Stuck OutgoingRunner
In-Reply-To: <986cd340-53fc-f19f-96e3-3d7c76139287@poem.co.jp>
References: <B049AB3977BFF7B47FF517D0@tyrion.rrz.uni-koeln.de>
 <1003ca48-6031-1c00-8a5e-f68b5ac99846@msapiro.net>
 <7D74F3692CB8DF4C4656EE54@Sebbis-iMac.local>
 <f02a8448-a249-f973-e5fc-f4394c2df122@msapiro.net>
 <35b995d2-f45e-2e07-fbbc-aa8c69db38cc@poem.co.jp>
 <F7642C910711C73C4333C953@tyrion.rrz.uni-koeln.de>
 <54fb76d1-6113-68f7-7a0d-67d197ecdfbf@msapiro.net>
 <986cd340-53fc-f19f-96e3-3d7c76139287@poem.co.jp>
Message-ID: <E8861B66B90BD0A64B79DF54@tyrion.rrz.uni-koeln.de>

It happened again yesterday. Details below.

--On 7. Februar 2018 um 12:43:18 +0900 Yasuhito FUTATSUKI 
<futatuki at poem.co.jp> wrote:

> In fact,
>
> On 02/02/18 19:26, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
>> root at mailman3/usr/lib/mailman/bin]$ strace -p 1677
>> Process 1677 attached
>> recvfrom(10, ^CProcess 1677 detached
>
> indicates the OutGoingRunner process 1677 was still in recvfrom(2)
> system call (perhaps called from recv(2)) for FD 10, and
>
>> [root at mailman3/usr/lib/mailman/bin]$ lsof -p 1677
>> COMMAND    PID    USER   FD   TYPE   DEVICE SIZE/OFF   NODE NAME
>> python2.7 1677 mailman  cwd    DIR    253,0     4096 173998
>> /usr/lib/mailman python2.7 1677 mailman  rtd    DIR    253,0     4096
>> 2 /
>> ...
>> python2.7 1677 mailman   10u  IPv6 46441320      0t0    TCP
>> mailman3.rrz.uni-koeln.de:55764->smtp-out.rrz.uni-koeln.de:smtp
>> (ESTABLISHED)
>
> indicates its FD 10 was ESTABLISHED connection to the MTA.

That situation was exactly the same. This time we confirmed on the MTA that 
there was no trace of that connection anymore. At the time of the incident, 
the MTA was once again under high load and delaying commands. That 
definitely seems to be a contributing factor. We didn't find any evidence 
of a connection that was dropped by the MTA, but with four OutgoingRunners 
we didn't find a way to determine which transaction related to which runner.

> If the MTA is hanging up (or very slow progress) in application layer and
> keeping alive TCP connection in lower layer, client using smtplib
> without specifying timeout, like current SMTPDirect handler in Mailman,
> must wait for response or the MTA dying.

If I understood Mark correctly, when the MTA dropped the connection that 
should have raised socket.error regardless of timeouts. The question is why 
it didn't. I suppose that could be either a bug in our version of the 
Python libraries or in the OS. Any ideas how we should proceed to determine 
the root cause?
-- 
    .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - Weyertal 121 (Geb?ude 133), Zimmer 2.02.:.
                 .:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:.
   .:.Universit?t zu K?ln / Cologne University - ? +49-221-470-89578.:.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/attachments/20180316/4619df6f/attachment.sig>

From cmupythia at cmu.edu  Fri Mar 16 13:42:16 2018
From: cmupythia at cmu.edu (Gretchen R Beck)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:42:16 +0000
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Anyone successfully using a proxy with recaptha v2
 in mailman?
Message-ID: <1521222136936.80303@cmu.edu>

Hi Folks,


My apologies if this is the wrong list. We're moving a departmental mailman server which was unfirewalled (except the server's local firewall) that used the recaptcha v1 client and additions from Andrea Veri.


The new machine is behind a network firewall, and the "recommendation" is to access this via proxy (which makes sense since google makes no guarantee about their IP addresses. Has anyone gotten this working using a proxy and if so how?


(Also, if this is the wrong place to post, please point me to somewhere better!)


Thanks!


Gretchen Beck

Carnegie Mellon

From james at dorydesign.com  Fri Mar 16 15:57:58 2018
From: james at dorydesign.com (Jim Dory)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:57:58 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Yahoo rejects
Message-ID: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.gmail.com>

Mostly an FYI but also curious if anyone else sees this. I'm constantly
having problems with yahoo it seems but this time, for the last couple
days, I've been seeing this message:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: MAILER-DAEMON at yahoo.com
To: nome-announce-bounces at nomekennelclub.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date:
Subject: Delivery failure
Message from yahoo.com.
Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).

<bsberr-snip at yahoo.com <bsberry9297 at yahoo.com>>:
This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (bsberr-snip at yahoo.com
<bsberry9297 at yahoo.com>) [0]

(I've snipped the address)

I got this delivery failure on perhaps 30 yahoo users over the last couple
days, and it is repeating. When I write to any of the users personally,
they respond that - yes, they are still there.

regards, Jim

From james at dorydesign.com  Fri Mar 16 17:15:50 2018
From: james at dorydesign.com (Jim Dory)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:15:50 -0800
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Yahoo rejects
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20180316141043.09d58040@pdbti.org>
References: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.0.16.2.20180316141043.09d58040@pdbti.org>
Message-ID: <CAKhfoy0ufQF6YxK_PRi4PhmUN45tyf3YYNjUsi2ByvruOkb5fQ@mail.gmail.com>

oops, I see in Andrews replay I didn't snip all the address....  shoot.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Andrew White, PhD <awhite at pdbti.org> wrote:

> We (pdbti.org) have been seeing an increase in rejects for yahoo users
> this week as well...
>
>
> At 12:57 PM 3/16/2018, Jim Dory wrote:
>
> Mostly an FYI but also curious if anyone else sees this. I'm constantly
> having problems with yahoo it seems but this time, for the last couple
> days, I've been seeing this message:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: MAILER-DAEMON at yahoo.com
> To: nome-announce-bounces at nomekennelclub.com
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date:
> Subject: Delivery failure
> Message from yahoo.com.
> Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).
>
> <bsberr-snip at yahoo.com <bsberry9297 at yahoo.com>>:
> This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (bsberr-snip at yahoo.com
> <bsberry9297 at yahoo.com>) [0]
>
> (I've snipped the address)
>
> I got this delivery failure on perhaps 30 yahoo users over the last couple
> days, and it is repeating. When I write to any of the users personally,
> they respond that - yes, they are still there.
>
> regards, Jim
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/
> mailman-users%40python.org/
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users at python.org/>
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/
> awhite%40pdbti.org
> <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/awhite at pdbti.org>
>
> ........................................................................
> Andrew White, PhD
> Associate Director
> DBT-Linehan Board of Certification, Certified DBT Clinician?
> Licensed Clinical Psychologist
> Portland DBT Institute
> (503) 290.3281 <(503)%20290-3281> (phone)
> (503) 231.8153 <(503)%20231-8153> (fax)
>
> *Please be aware that e-mail communication can be intercepted in
> transmission or misdirected. This e-mail message and any documents attached
> to it are confidential and may contain information that is protected from
> disclosure by various federal and state laws, including the HIPAA privacy
> rule (45 C.F.R., Part 164). This information is intended to be used solely
> by the entity or individual to whom this message is addressed. If you are
> not the intended recipient, be advised that any use, dissemination,
> forwarding, printing, or copying of this message without the sender's
> written permission is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Accordingly,
> if you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately with a copy to hipaa(at)pdbti.org <http://pdbti.org> and
> destroy this message. Please do not include personal identifying
> information such as your birth date, or personal medical information in any
> emails you send to us. No one can diagnose your condition from email or
> other written communications and is not a reliable mechanism for emergency
> communication.*
>

From mark at msapiro.net  Fri Mar 16 17:57:17 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:57:17 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Yahoo rejects
In-Reply-To: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <688d0e44-3a20-73f5-a336-b0c3c3c8a55e@msapiro.net>

On 3/16/18 12:57 PM, Jim Dory wrote:
> Mostly an FYI but also curious if anyone else sees this. I'm constantly
> having problems with yahoo it seems but this time, for the last couple
> days, I've been seeing this message:
> ...
> <bsberr-snip at yahoo.com:
> This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (bsberr-snip at yahoo.com)


Coincidentally, Just yesterday I saw one bounce like this for one
yahoo.com list member on a list with quite a few yahoo.com members. This
member only bounced one post this way and prior and subsequent posts to
this member as well as this post to other yahoo members were delivered
successfully.

It's definitely YAYFU (yet another yahoo ...)

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

From awhite at pdbti.org  Fri Mar 16 17:11:06 2018
From: awhite at pdbti.org (Andrew White, PhD)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:11:06 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Yahoo rejects
In-Reply-To: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20180316141043.09d58040@pdbti.org>

   We (pdbti.org) have been seeing an increase in rejects for yahoo users
   this week as well...

   At 12:57 PM 3/16/2018, Jim Dory wrote:

     Mostly an FYI but also curious if anyone else sees this. I'm constantly
     having problems with yahoo it seems but this time, for the last couple
     days, I've been seeing this message:

     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
     From: MAILER-DAEMON at yahoo.com
     To: nome-announce-bounces at nomekennelclub.com
     Cc:
     Bcc:
     Date:
     Subject: Delivery failure
     Message from yahoo.com.
     Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).

     <bsberr-snip at yahoo.com <bsberry9297 at yahoo.com>>:
     This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account (bsberr-snip at yahoo.com
     <bsberry9297 at yahoo.com>) [0]

     (I've snipped the address)

     I got this delivery failure on perhaps 30 yahoo users over the last
     couple
     days, and it is repeating. When I write to any of the users personally,
     they respond that - yes, they are still there.

     regards, Jim
     ------------------------------------------------------
     Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
     [1]https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
     Mailman FAQ: [2]http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
     Security Policy: [3]http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
     Searchable Archives:
     [4]http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
     Unsubscribe:
     [5]https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/awhite%40pdbti.org

   ........................................................................
   Andrew White, PhD
   Associate Director
   DBT-Linehan Board of Certification, Certified DBT Clinician*
   Licensed Clinical Psychologist
   Portland DBT Institute
   (503) 290.3281 (phone)
   (503) 231.8153 (fax)

   Please be aware that e-mail communication can be intercepted in
   transmission or misdirected. This e-mail message and any documents
   attached to it are confidential and may contain information that is
   protected from disclosure by various federal and state laws, including the
   HIPAA privacy rule (45 C.F.R., Part 164). This information is intended to
   be used solely by the entity or individual to whom this message is
   addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any use,
   dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this message without
   the sender's written permission is strictly prohibited and may be
   unlawful. Accordingly, if you have received this message in error, please
   notify the sender immediately with a copy to hipaa(at)pdbti.org and
   destroy this message. Please do not include personal identifying
   information such as your birth date, or personal medical information in
   any emails you send to us. No one can diagnose your condition from email
   or other written communications and is not a reliable mechanism for
   emergency communication.

References

   Visible links
   1. https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
   2. http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
   3. http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
   4. http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users at python.org/
   5. https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/awhite at pdbti.org

From awhite at pdbti.org  Fri Mar 16 17:12:52 2018
From: awhite at pdbti.org (Andrew White, PhD)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:12:52 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] preventing users from subscribing via Mailman
 interface?
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20180316141106.09d582d0@mindspring.com>

   Searched, but didn't see anything. I would like to make it so our list
   automatically discards any subscription requests, and sends a message back
   telling the person they need to visit a website to sign up (currently, I
   do this manually and send people:

   "Hi!

   In order to join DBT-L, please visit:
   [1]https://www.pdbti.org/dbt-l/

   Thanks so much!"

   Is there a way to automate this I'm not seeing?

   Thanks!

   ........................................................................
   Andrew White, PhD
   Associate Director
   DBT-Linehan Board of Certification, Certified DBT Clinician*
   Licensed Clinical Psychologist
   Portland DBT Institute
   (503) 290.3281 (phone)
   (503) 231.8153 (fax)

   Please be aware that e-mail communication can be intercepted in
   transmission or misdirected. This e-mail message and any documents
   attached to it are confidential and may contain information that is
   protected from disclosure by various federal and state laws, including the
   HIPAA privacy rule (45 C.F.R., Part 164). This information is intended to
   be used solely by the entity or individual to whom this message is
   addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any use,
   dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this message without
   the sender's written permission is strictly prohibited and may be
   unlawful. Accordingly, if you have received this message in error, please
   notify the sender immediately with a copy to hipaa(at)pdbti.org and
   destroy this message. Please do not include personal identifying
   information such as your birth date, or personal medical information in
   any emails you send to us. No one can diagnose your condition from email
   or other written communications and is not a reliable mechanism for
   emergency communication.

References

   Visible links
   1. https://www.pdbti.org/dbt-l/

From mark at msapiro.net  Fri Mar 16 19:27:29 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:27:29 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] preventing users from subscribing via Mailman
 interface?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20180316141106.09d582d0@mindspring.com>
References: <7.0.0.16.2.20180316141106.09d582d0@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <60f46fa9-2907-bb44-c08a-a595405cf476@msapiro.net>

On 03/16/2018 02:12 PM, Andrew White, PhD wrote:
>    Searched, but didn't see anything. I would like to make it so our list
>    automatically discards any subscription requests, and sends a message back
>    telling the person they need to visit a website to sign up (currently, I
>    do this manually and send people:


Clearly you could do this by modifying the code in
Mailman/Commands/cmd_subscribe.py (for email subscribes) and
Mailman/Cgi/subscribe.py for web subscribes.

I can't think of any other way to do this. I did consider using the
ban_list and making an 'en' message catalog to change the 'banned'
message, but then you couldn't manually add the address either.

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

From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net  Fri Mar 16 21:54:50 2018
From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 19:54:50 -0600
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Yahoo rejects
In-Reply-To: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <720592d0-1245-c49e-ba75-c33616e478a0@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>

On 03/16/2018 01:57 PM, Jim Dory wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: MAILER-DAEMON at domain2.example
> To: nome-announce-bounces at domain1.example
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date:
> Subject: Delivery failure
> Message from domain2.example.
> Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).
> 
> <redacted1 at domain2.example <redacted2 at domain2.example>>:
> This user doesn't have a domain2.example account (redacted1 at domain2.example
> <redacted2 at domain2.example>) [0]

Okay.  That seems like a generic "non existent user" type response.

> (I've snipped the address)

;-)

> I got this delivery failure on perhaps 30 yahoo users over the last couple
> days, and it is repeating. When I write to any of the users personally,
> they respond that - yes, they are still there.

Okay.  So Yahoo is returning 5xy errors that make it seem like the 
recipient address is invalid for known good recipient addresses.

It sounds like some sort of filtering is either mis-behaving or poorly 
configured to me.

Has there been any noise about Yahoo on mailop about this new behavior?



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


From mark at msapiro.net  Sun Mar 18 15:08:07 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:08:07 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 2 and read notifications
In-Reply-To: <1519746013.32173.70.camel@fcal.uner.edu.ar>
References: <1519746013.32173.70.camel@fcal.uner.edu.ar>
Message-ID: <6ac70493-f07a-61b1-c92c-55dfb4646852@msapiro.net>

On 02/27/2018 07:40 AM, Carlos R. Pasqualini wrote:
> 
> Is it possible that the original sender set the 'confirmation request'
> on the MUA and that request propagated past mailman and got into
> receiver's MUA?


Sorry for the delayed reply - this got buried in my inbox.

To combat this, Mailman removes the following headers from posts
delivered to list members:

return-receipt-to
disposition-notification-to
x-confirm-reading-to
x-pmrqc

If you have seen another header that causes some MUA or MTA to return a
receipt, please let me know what it is so we can remove that too.


> If yes: Is there a way to intercept and delete these requests on the
> Mailman host?


As I said, we try.

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

From List.Server.Admin at unh.edu  Mon Mar 19 08:30:15 2018
From: List.Server.Admin at unh.edu (The Mailing List Server Admin)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Yahoo rejects
In-Reply-To: <720592d0-1245-c49e-ba75-c33616e478a0@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
References: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <720592d0-1245-c49e-ba75-c33616e478a0@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.03.1803190819070.23656@conundrum.unh.edu>

Hello -

FWIW, I've seen this recently from Yahoo as well, and have been unable to 
get a reponse from Yahoo about it.

It seems very likely that, as Grant Taylor suggests, its a filtering 
issue. It's been an occasional recommendation here for users of high 
priority lists to use a mail provider other than Yahoo, for more or less 
this reason. Our guess is that if a user or users report mailing list 
messages as spam, instead of unsubscribing, Yahoo's filter may begin 
mistreating list  messages from a given source as spam for a time - 
usually a week or two.

Yahoo's lack of outbound communication, and the 5xy rejection code for an 
active user make unravelling this more of a challenge than it need be.

-- 
  Tim


      You recently wrote to the UNH Mailing List Server Admin:

> On 03/16/2018 01:57 PM, Jim Dory wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: MAILER-DAEMON at domain2.example
>> To: nome-announce-bounces at domain1.example
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date:
>> Subject: Delivery failure
>> Message from domain2.example.
>> Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).
>> 
>> <redacted1 at domain2.example <redacted2 at domain2.example>>:
>> This user doesn't have a domain2.example account (redacted1 at domain2.example
>> <redacted2 at domain2.example>) [0]
>
> Okay.  That seems like a generic "non existent user" type response.
>
>> (I've snipped the address)
>
> ;-)
>
>> I got this delivery failure on perhaps 30 yahoo users over the last couple
>> days, and it is repeating. When I write to any of the users personally,
>> they respond that - yes, they are still there.
>
> Okay.  So Yahoo is returning 5xy errors that make it seem like the recipient 
> address is invalid for known good recipient addresses.
>
> It sounds like some sort of filtering is either mis-behaving or poorly 
> configured to me.
>
> Has there been any noise about Yahoo on mailop about this new behavior?
>
>
>
> -- 
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>


From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net  Mon Mar 19 20:33:49 2018
From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:33:49 -0600
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Yahoo rejects
In-Reply-To: <720592d0-1245-c49e-ba75-c33616e478a0@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
References: <CAKhfoy2=8t23BTeU8Fwc_SsBMAKuufe57mN6=r-2OfWt7_RJ3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <720592d0-1245-c49e-ba75-c33616e478a0@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Message-ID: <db098634-78d0-fb38-0735-43213162c847@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>

On 03/16/2018 07:54 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote:
> Has there been any noise about Yahoo on mailop about this new behavior?

I just read a handful of messages on mailop where multiple people are 
reporting this issue.

One of the last messages indicated that the problem might be clearing up.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


From luscheina at yahoo.de  Tue Mar 20 12:00:50 2018
From: luscheina at yahoo.de (Christian F Buser)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:00:50 +0100
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Bounces counter for list subscribers
Message-ID: <20180320170050800380.a8fbb417@yahoo.de>

Hi all 

We recently had a problem that a mail provider refused to accept messages from our domain - including list messages - for addresses on their server. 

The problem has been sorted out and the messages are now going through again. 

But all addresses on that receiving domain had been disabled once due to too many bounces. I re-enabled these users again, but of course this was before the real problem was solved. So in the mean time, I received several bounce warnings again - but not enough to disable the list members again automatically. 

How is the bounce counter handled by mailman? Is it "reset" automatically after a certain period without delivery problems? Or can I reset it manually (I did not see this possibility, but it still might exist)? 

Mailman 2.1.23 on cPanel 68.0.33

Thank you, Christian 
-- 
Christian F. Buser, Hohle Gasse 6, CH-5507 Mellingen (Switzerland)      
Hilfe fuer Strassenkinder in Ghana: http://www.chance-for-children.org

From mark at msapiro.net  Tue Mar 20 13:18:06 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:18:06 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Bounces counter for list subscribers
In-Reply-To: <20180320170050800380.a8fbb417@yahoo.de>
References: <20180320170050800380.a8fbb417@yahoo.de>
Message-ID: <aea40021-1cc4-1129-4bbe-407a976206c5@msapiro.net>

On 03/20/2018 09:00 AM, Christian F Buser via Mailman-Users wrote:
> 
> How is the bounce counter handled by mailman? Is it "reset" automatically after a certain period without delivery problems? Or can I reset it manually (I did not see this possibility, but it still might exist)? 


This is controlled by the list setting bounce_info_stale_after. This is
an integer number of days, default = 7. If no bounces are received for a
user for that length of time, the next bounce for that user will reset
the score.

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

From luscheina at yahoo.de  Tue Mar 20 14:56:06 2018
From: luscheina at yahoo.de (Christian F Buser)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:56:06 +0100
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Bounces counter for list subscribers
In-Reply-To: <aea40021-1cc4-1129-4bbe-407a976206c5@msapiro.net>
References: <20180320170050800380.a8fbb417@yahoo.de>
 <aea40021-1cc4-1129-4bbe-407a976206c5@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <20180320195606298360.d0eb212f@yahoo.de>

Hello Mark Sapiro. On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:18:06 -0700, you wrote:

>> How is the bounce counter handled by mailman? Is it "reset" 
>> automatically after a certain period without delivery problems? Or 
>> can I reset it manually (I did not see this possibility, but it 
>> still might exist)? 
> 
> 
> This is controlled by the list setting bounce_info_stale_after. This is
> an integer number of days, default = 7. If no bounces are received for a
> user for that length of time, the next bounce for that user will reset
> the score.

Great, thank you! 

Christian 

-- 
Christian F. Buser, Hohle Gasse 6, CH-5507 Mellingen (Switzerland)      
Hilfe fuer Strassenkinder in Ghana: http://www.chance-for-children.org

From jaybird at bluegrasspals.com  Thu Mar 22 10:10:06 2018
From: jaybird at bluegrasspals.com (Jayson Smith)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:10:06 -0400
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sending domain does not exist but it actually does?
Message-ID: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>

Hi,


Lately I've been getting some bounced mail from people at the 
provider/server plus.com. I've redacted addresses, but this is the error 
message:


<<< 550 #5.1.8 Domain of sender address <xxxxxxx-bounces at xxxxxxx.com> 
does not exist
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable

Obviously, the sending domain *does* exist, so I assume it's their 
problem. Is there anything at all I can do about this? Not all mail to 
these users bounces.


Thanks,


Jayson



From luscheina at yahoo.de  Thu Mar 22 12:00:37 2018
From: luscheina at yahoo.de (Christian F Buser)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:00:37 +0100
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sending domain does not exist but it actually
 does?
In-Reply-To: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>
References: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>
Message-ID: <5AB3D325.4030106@yahoo.de>

Hi Jayson

Who was the domain "complaining" about this? You did not mention. 

We recently had the problem that German provider "1&1 Internet" (who
also operates one of the biggest freemail services, GMX, and some other
mail domains) would not accept mails from our domain (and also not send
to it), throwing an error message about some missing MX record. However,
all other domains (or addresses)  could be reached without any problems,
and they could also send mails to us.

Please check on the site of GMX
<https://postmaster.gmx.com/en/error-messages> what the requirements are
for them to accept mail messages. Then you can check your DNS entries
using <https://intodns.com/> whether all necessary entries are there.

Christian
> Jayson Smith <mailto:jaybird at bluegrasspals.com>
> 22. M???rz 2018 um 15:10
> Hi,
>
>
> Lately I've been getting some bounced mail from people at the
> provider/server plus.com. I've redacted addresses, but this is the
> error message:
>
>
> <<< 550 #5.1.8 Domain of sender address <xxxxxxx-bounces at xxxxxxx.com>
> does not exist
> 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable
>
> Obviously, the sending domain *does* exist, so I assume it's their
> problem. Is there anything at all I can do about this? Not all mail to
> these users bounces.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Jayson
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
> Searchable Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/luscheina%40yahoo.de
>

-- 
Christian F. Buser, Hohle Gasse 6, CH-5507 Mellingen (Switzerland)      
Hilfe f???r Strassenkinder in Ghana: http://www.chance-for-children.org

From fredrik.falk at siemens.com  Thu Mar 22 02:49:17 2018
From: fredrik.falk at siemens.com (Falk, Fredrik)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:49:17 +0000
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman email suffix
Message-ID: <938F837E3A24BF4DABC2A3AA1BC3168C2FA6E5E5@DEKOMMBX002.net.plm.eds.com>

Hello,
I am currently moving a mailman installation from one machine to another, using the same 2.1.15 version.
I?ve copied all the configs over; lists, data, archives as well as the Apache & Postfix configs.

However, I am a bit surprised that the two systems don?t behave identical.
When I create a new list on both systems, I get the welcome email.

On the old system the e-mail I receive is coming from listname-bounces.suffix at domain.com<mailto:listname-bounces.suffix at domain.com> on behalf of mailman-owner at domain.com<mailto:mailman-owner at domain.com>
And in the e-mail body there is also the e-mail address present listname-request.suffix at domain.com<mailto:listname-request.suffix at domain.com>

Now on the new system the e-email is coming from listname-bounces at domain.com<mailto:listname-bounces at domain.com> on behalf of mailman-owner at domain.com<mailto:mailman-owner at domain.com>
In the e-mail body the e-mail is listname-request at domain.com<mailto:listname-request at domain.com>


So you see, I am missing the ?.suffix? part

I have not found any setting which would change the behavior like this.
Anyone has any idea what I am missing?

Thanks!

Kind Regards,
Fredrik

-----------------
Siemens Industry Software GmbH; Anschrift: Franz-Geuer-Str. 10, 50823 K?ln; Gesellschaft mit beschr?nkter Haftung; Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Urban August, Daniel Trebes; Sitz der Gesellschaft: K?ln; Registergericht: Amtsgericht K?ln, HRB 84564

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar 22 13:26:51 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:26:51 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman email suffix
In-Reply-To: <938F837E3A24BF4DABC2A3AA1BC3168C2FA6E5E5@DEKOMMBX002.net.plm.eds.com>
References: <938F837E3A24BF4DABC2A3AA1BC3168C2FA6E5E5@DEKOMMBX002.net.plm.eds.com>
Message-ID: <5defd24f-539c-824d-321c-dbc6b28c8a57@msapiro.net>

On 03/21/2018 11:49 PM, Falk, Fredrik wrote:
> 
> On the old system the e-mail I receive is coming from listname-bounces.suffix at domain.com on behalf of mailman-owner at domain.com
> And in the e-mail body there is also the e-mail address present listname-request.suffix at domain.com
> 
> Now on the new system the e-email is coming from listname-bounces at domain.com on behalf of mailman-owner at domain.com
> In the e-mail body the e-mail is listname-request at domain.com
> 
> 
> So you see, I am missing the ?.suffix? part
> 
> I have not found any setting which would change the behavior like this.
> Anyone has any idea what I am missing?


The address in the welcome message is in the subscribeack.txt template.
The FAQ article at <https://wiki.list.org/x/4030605> describes the
search order.

The address in the envelope comes from the GetBouncesEmail() list method
which in turn uses the getListAddress() method. These are defined in
Mailman/MailList.py.

What modifications to these did you have on the old system that you
didn't carry forward?

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

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar 22 13:41:54 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:41:54 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sending domain does not exist but it actually
 does?
In-Reply-To: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>
References: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>
Message-ID: <aaf469b0-facb-dc00-f1a7-b8d4edf35c79@msapiro.net>

On 03/22/2018 07:10 AM, Jayson Smith wrote:
> 
> <<< 550 #5.1.8 Domain of sender address <xxxxxxx-bounces at xxxxxxx.com>
> does not exist
> 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable


I would check the following in DNS

Does xxxxxxx.com have an A record (not a CNAME)?
Does the IP address in that A record have a PTR (rDNS) back to xxxxxxx.com?
If you support IPv6, check the same things for the AAAA record.


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

From jaybird at bluegrasspals.com  Thu Mar 22 14:14:05 2018
From: jaybird at bluegrasspals.com (Jayson Smith)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:14:05 -0400
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sending domain does not exist but it actually
 does?
In-Reply-To: <aaf469b0-facb-dc00-f1a7-b8d4edf35c79@msapiro.net>
References: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>
 <aaf469b0-facb-dc00-f1a7-b8d4edf35c79@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <c87af465-3a7a-ef9a-3246-076063e54e7f@bluegrasspals.com>

FYI the host in question is bluegrasspals.com. It does have an A record, 
and its ip has proper reverse nslookup back to the domain. My host 
supports IPV6 but I'm not using it for mail.

Jayson

On 3/22/2018 1:41 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 03/22/2018 07:10 AM, Jayson Smith wrote:
>> <<< 550 #5.1.8 Domain of sender address <xxxxxxx-bounces at xxxxxxx.com>
>> does not exist
>> 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable
>
> I would check the following in DNS
>
> Does xxxxxxx.com have an A record (not a CNAME)?
> Does the IP address in that A record have a PTR (rDNS) back to xxxxxxx.com?
> If you support IPv6, check the same things for the AAAA record.
>
>


From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu  Thu Mar 22 14:26:41 2018
From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:26:41 -0500
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sending domain does not exist but it actually
 does?
In-Reply-To: <c87af465-3a7a-ef9a-3246-076063e54e7f@bluegrasspals.com>
References: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>
 <aaf469b0-facb-dc00-f1a7-b8d4edf35c79@msapiro.net>
 <c87af465-3a7a-ef9a-3246-076063e54e7f@bluegrasspals.com>
Message-ID: <b3c34181-2866-4564-a4d7-81ae20e12e4e@bmrb.wisc.edu>

On 03/22/2018 01:14 PM, Jayson Smith wrote:

> ... My host
> supports IPV6 but I'm not using it for mail.

As in you have "inet_protocols = ipv4" in your postfix config (or the
equivalent for your MTA)? Otherwise it's not quite up to you.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/attachments/20180322/d8d3de76/attachment-0001.sig>

From mark at msapiro.net  Thu Mar 22 14:48:53 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:48:53 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sending domain does not exist but it actually
 does?
In-Reply-To: <c87af465-3a7a-ef9a-3246-076063e54e7f@bluegrasspals.com>
References: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>
 <aaf469b0-facb-dc00-f1a7-b8d4edf35c79@msapiro.net>
 <c87af465-3a7a-ef9a-3246-076063e54e7f@bluegrasspals.com>
Message-ID: <54f6b681-d73f-08fc-0b3e-063e52ae4d17@msapiro.net>

On 03/22/2018 11:14 AM, Jayson Smith wrote:
> FYI the host in question is bluegrasspals.com. It does have an A record,
> and its ip has proper reverse nslookup back to the domain. My host
> supports IPV6 but I'm not using it for mail.


That should be OK assuming as Dimitri Maziuk says you have
"inet_protocols = ipv4" in your postfix config (or the
equivalent for your MTA).

However, I note the domain doesn't have an MX. That should be OK as it
does have an A, but since plus.com is apparently misbehaving, we have no
clue as to what they are looking at, and adding an MX may help.

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

From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu  Thu Mar 22 14:59:42 2018
From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:59:42 -0500
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sending domain does not exist but it actually
 does?
In-Reply-To: <54f6b681-d73f-08fc-0b3e-063e52ae4d17@msapiro.net>
References: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>
 <aaf469b0-facb-dc00-f1a7-b8d4edf35c79@msapiro.net>
 <c87af465-3a7a-ef9a-3246-076063e54e7f@bluegrasspals.com>
 <54f6b681-d73f-08fc-0b3e-063e52ae4d17@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <e816d673-0746-b72b-fb07-68f68ac30462@bmrb.wisc.edu>

On 03/22/2018 01:48 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:

> That should be OK assuming as Dimitri Maziuk says you have
> "inet_protocols = ipv4" in your postfix config (or the
> equivalent for your MTA).

On 2nd thought, if they are the ones bouncing, *they* may be running
AAAA query instead of the A one. Check if that resolves, in addition to MX.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/attachments/20180322/662bcbae/attachment.sig>

From jaybird at bluegrasspals.com  Thu Mar 22 19:47:25 2018
From: jaybird at bluegrasspals.com (Jayson Smith)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 19:47:25 -0400
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sending domain does not exist but it actually
 does?
In-Reply-To: <54f6b681-d73f-08fc-0b3e-063e52ae4d17@msapiro.net>
References: <7898cd34-2691-b090-e669-cb51543d8a57@bluegrasspals.com>
 <aaf469b0-facb-dc00-f1a7-b8d4edf35c79@msapiro.net>
 <c87af465-3a7a-ef9a-3246-076063e54e7f@bluegrasspals.com>
 <54f6b681-d73f-08fc-0b3e-063e52ae4d17@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <37e7245c-4cd9-009b-6bd9-cae08beb32e0@bluegrasspals.com>

Hi,

I checked my domain, and it turns out somehow my MX record got blown 
away. Also a while back I canceled No-Ip Plus managed DNS, thinking it 
was only used for dynamic DNS, but in the process I threw away my SPF 
record which I've now recreated after re-enabling Plus. Also lost my 
DKIM record which I've recreated. We'll see if that resolves anything.

Thanks for your pointers.

Jayson

On 3/22/2018 2:48 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 03/22/2018 11:14 AM, Jayson Smith wrote:
>> FYI the host in question is bluegrasspals.com. It does have an A record,
>> and its ip has proper reverse nslookup back to the domain. My host
>> supports IPV6 but I'm not using it for mail.
>
> That should be OK assuming as Dimitri Maziuk says you have
> "inet_protocols = ipv4" in your postfix config (or the
> equivalent for your MTA).
>
> However, I note the domain doesn't have an MX. That should be OK as it
> does have an A, but since plus.com is apparently misbehaving, we have no
> clue as to what they are looking at, and adding an MX may help.
>


From geek at uniserve.com  Mon Mar 26 11:36:32 2018
From: geek at uniserve.com (Dave Stevens)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 08:36:32 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] two problems with Mailman 2.1
In-Reply-To: <716bb0e5-cd51-0c23-8d26-528001fa91b7@msapiro.net>
References: <20180201124103.21316r5vvig3zyan@webmail.uniserve.com>
 <716bb0e5-cd51-0c23-8d26-528001fa91b7@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <20180326083632.1806a976@dave-900X1B>

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:12:44 -0800
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> wrote:

> On 02/01/2018 12:41 PM, Dave Stevens wrote:
> > I?m having a couple of problems with a Mailman 2.1 list.
> > 
> > I want to add several addresses as new subscribers so as a first
> > step I added one of them using the mass subscription facility in
> > membership management. Mailman accepted the data but when I
> > subsequently checked the subscriber list it wasn?t there. This has
> > been the case for two days now.  
> 
> 
> When you submitted the mass subscribe form the first time, did you
> get a response with a message at the top saying "successfully
> subscribed" or did it say something else.
> 
> 
> > Today I checked manually that the recipient address was in fact
> > working and decided to resubscribe using the same method. I enter
> > the data in the text box (I?ve done this several times) then click
> > on the "submit your changes" button below and get this
> > message, ?Error: The form lifetime has expired. (request forgery
> > check)?
> > 
> > This happens without any special delay on my part, not more than a
> > few minutes. Please advise.  
> 
> 
> You need to first get the form and then submit it within whatever the
> FORM_LIFETIME setting is in your installation. The default is one hour
> but could be different in your installation.
> 
> I suspect the issue is something else. I don't know what the issue
> might be, but one thing to check is to look at the HTML source of the
> admin/LIST_NAME/members/add page in your browser. The FORM tag in that
> source should be
> 
> <FORM action="../../../admin/LIST_NAME/members/add" method="POST"
> enctype="multipart/form-data">
> 
> If instead it is something like
> 
> <FORM action="http://example.com/mailman/admin/gpc-talk/members/add"
> method="POST" enctype="multipart/form-data">
> 
> And the URL in the address bar is different, i.e. a different domain
> or a different scheme (like https vs http) that might be an issue.
> 
> Is this your Mailman installation or a hosted installation?
> 
> Do other 'admin' and 'admindb' pages work? I.e. if you change
> something on the admin General Options page and submit, does it work
> or produce the same form lifetime error?
> 

Hi Mark,

I eventually found withlist, which I hadn't know about before and that
allowed me to do what I needed, even though the GUI is still not
functional. Thhanks very much for your help.


D

From david.elliott at angenay.com  Mon Mar 26 04:51:40 2018
From: david.elliott at angenay.com (David Elliott)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:51:40 +0200
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Newbie User
Message-ID: <e6b2830d-2dc0-a96b-05bf-f88090ad864d@angenay.com>

Hi,

I am a newbie to Mailman and cpanel and I need some help, please. I have 
set up a mailing list for my tennis club (about 300 on list) and it 
seems to work ok BUT each recipient only sees the mailing list name 
rather than his own email name in the 'to' box. One of the recipients 
recently did a 'reply to all' and consequently sent his reply to the 
whole mailing list. I'm sure there must be a way to prevent this but I 
can't find it!


David Elliott


From javitoom96 at gmail.com  Mon Mar 26 19:01:43 2018
From: javitoom96 at gmail.com (Javier)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:01:43 +0200
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Only one list not working
Message-ID: <7d4cd5ea-292f-8c38-e27c-a7ff812fbcd0@gmail.com>

?Hello to everyone!

Only one of my lists does not work, the web interface of this list does.

When I send an email the list after a while I receive a message with the 
rejected connection.

In the Postfix log I don't see any errors and the telnet connection 
works. I don't see any errors in Mailman's logs either, but they are 
strangely empty.

Can you think of what the mistake might be?

Thank you in advance. Greetings.

From polishjeff at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 27 10:01:52 2018
From: polishjeff at yahoo.com (Jeff Polasek)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:01:52 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Help - Subscribe/unsubscribe broken
References: <590142139.330999.1522159312235.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <590142139.330999.1522159312235@mail.yahoo.com>

Howdy,
I recently updated from mailman 2.1.? to 2.1.26.? After this update users can not subscribe or unsubscribe.? Here is the error from the mailman log.? Any ideas what I need to fix?? It may be a database problem?
Thanks
Jeff

Mar 27 08:57:49 2018 admin(21493): @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?

admin(21493): [----- Mailman Version: 2.1.26 -----]?

admin(21493): [----- Traceback ------]?

admin(21493): Traceback (most recent call last):

admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/scripts/driver", line 117, in run_main

admin(21493): ? ? main()

admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/subscribe.py", line 113, in main

admin(21493): ? ? process_form(mlist, doc, cgidata, language)

admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/subscribe.py", line 248, in process_form

admin(21493): ? ? mlist.AddMember(userdesc, remote)

admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 923, in AddMember

admin(21493): ? ? cookie = self.pend_new(Pending.SUBSCRIPTION, userdesc)

admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Pending.py", line 85, in pend_new

admin(21493): ? ? evictions = db.setdefault('evictions', {})

admin(21493): AttributeError: Message instance has no attribute 'setdefault'

admin(21493): [----- Python Information -----]?

admin(21493): sys.version ? ? = ? 2.7.12 (default, Dec? 4 2017, 14:50:18)?

[GCC 5.4.0 20160609]?

admin(21493): sys.executable? = ? /usr/bin/python?

admin(21493): sys.prefix? ? ? = ? /usr?

admin(21493): sys.exec_prefix = ? /usr?

admin(21493): sys.path? ? ? ? = ? ['/var/lib/mailman/pythonlib', '/var/lib/mailman', '/usr/lib/mailman/scripts', '/var/lib/mailman', '/usr/lib/python2.7/', '/usr/lib/python2.7/plat-x86_64-linux-gnu', '/usr/lib/python2.7/lib-tk', '/usr/lib/python2.7/lib-old', '/usr/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload', '/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages', '/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages']?

admin(21493): sys.platform? ? = ? linux2?

admin(21493): [----- Environment Variables -----]?

admin(21493):  CONTENT_LENGTH: 97?

admin(21493):  CONTENT_TYPE: application/x-www-form-urlencoded?

admin(21493):  HTTP_COOKIE: mml+admin=280200000069254aba5a732800000030306232313361323236663763306465363935393631613539633061313537633030623963303764; ajs_anonymous_id=%22d8f8ca92-1109-40e3-9415-0fd09ac14d87%22; _ga=GA1.2.4794311.1490733873; ajs_user_id=null; __utmz=194481448.1521488781.5.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=(not%20provided); ajs_group_id=%223ff0c525-2764-40c1-9653-b402a1c34211%22; _hp2_id.4205778290=%7B%22userId%22%3A%222302352706526137%22%2C%22pageviewId%22%3A%225888385097105288%22%2C%22sessionId%22%3A%228880360585997038%22%2C%22identity%22%3Anull%2C%22trackerVersion%22%3A%223.0%22%7D; __utmc=194481448; _gid=GA1.2.1014496654.1522088903; __utma=194481448.4794311.1490733873.1522089078.1522096859.8?

admin(21493):  SERVER_NAME: mopar.tamu.edu?

admin(21493):  SERVER_PROTOCOL: HTTP/1.1?

admin(21493):  PYTHONPATH: /var/lib/mailman?

admin(21493):  REMOTE_ADDR: 128.194.139.52?

admin(21493):  REQUEST_SCHEME: http?

admin(21493):  SCRIPT_NAME: /mailman/subscribe?

admin(21493):  REQUEST_METHOD: POST?

admin(21493):  HTTP_HOST: mopar.tamu.edu?

admin(21493):  PATH_INFO: /mml?

admin(21493):  SERVER_PORT: 80?

admin(21493):  REMOTE_PORT: 57518?

admin(21493):  QUERY_STRING: ?

admin(21493):  REQUEST_URI: /mailman/subscribe/mml?

admin(21493):  DOCUMENT_ROOT: /var/www/html?


From mark at msapiro.net  Tue Mar 27 12:12:25 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:12:25 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Newbie User
In-Reply-To: <e6b2830d-2dc0-a96b-05bf-f88090ad864d@angenay.com>
References: <e6b2830d-2dc0-a96b-05bf-f88090ad864d@angenay.com>
Message-ID: <f5fd0c86-b660-5453-cfdc-8f4aafe7cab9@msapiro.net>

On 03/26/2018 01:51 AM, David Elliott wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am a newbie to Mailman and cpanel and I need some help, please. I have
> set up a mailing list for my tennis club (about 300 on list) and it
> seems to work ok BUT each recipient only sees the mailing list name
> rather than his own email name in the 'to' box.


If you want this, you have to set the list's Non-digest options ->
personalize setting to Full Personalization. If you do not see the
'personalize' settings on the admin Non-digest options page, you need to set

OWNERS_CAN_ENABLE_PERSONALIZATION = Yes

in mm_cfg.py, but if this is a hosted cPanel installation, you probably
can't do that.


> One of the recipients
> recently did a 'reply to all' and consequently sent his reply to the
> whole mailing list. I'm sure there must be a way to prevent this but I
> can't find it!


No, there is not. Even if you enable Full Personalization, the list
posting address will be put in Cc: to facilitate replying to the list so
Reply-all will always include the list.

If this is an "announce" type list where members shouldn't post to the
list, see <https://wiki.list.org/x/4030685> for how to set that up, but
if it is a list where members are allowed to post, you can't prevent
reply-all going to the list unless you moderate all posts and don't
accept those you don't want on the list.

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

From mark at msapiro.net  Tue Mar 27 12:23:24 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:23:24 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Help - Subscribe/unsubscribe broken
In-Reply-To: <590142139.330999.1522159312235@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <590142139.330999.1522159312235.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <590142139.330999.1522159312235@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <da0b6ad7-3c81-a43e-27fb-86942afbf3c8@msapiro.net>

On 03/27/2018 07:01 AM, Jeff Polasek via Mailman-Users wrote:
> Howdy,
> I recently updated from mailman 2.1.? to 2.1.26.? After this update users can not subscribe or unsubscribe.? Here is the error from the mailman log.? Any ideas what I need to fix?? It may be a database problem?
> Thanks
> Jeff
> 
> Mar 27 08:57:49 2018 admin(21493): @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
> 
> admin(21493): [----- Mailman Version: 2.1.26 -----]?
> 
> admin(21493): [----- Traceback ------]?
> 
> admin(21493): Traceback (most recent call last):
> 
> admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/scripts/driver", line 117, in run_main
> 
> admin(21493): ? ? main()
> 
> admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/subscribe.py", line 113, in main
> 
> admin(21493): ? ? process_form(mlist, doc, cgidata, language)
> 
> admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/subscribe.py", line 248, in process_form
> 
> admin(21493): ? ? mlist.AddMember(userdesc, remote)
> 
> admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 923, in AddMember
> 
> admin(21493): ? ? cookie = self.pend_new(Pending.SUBSCRIPTION, userdesc)
> 
> admin(21493): ? File "/var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Pending.py", line 85, in pend_new
> 
> admin(21493): ? ? evictions = db.setdefault('evictions', {})
> 
> admin(21493): AttributeError: Message instance has no attribute 'setdefault'


This is very strange. It is saying that in the statement

        evictions = db.setdefault('evictions', {})

in Pending.py, db is a Message object. I think the only way this could
happen is if the lists/LISTNAME/pending.pck file is a pickled Message
object rather than a pending database. How that would happen, I don't know.

You could dump this file with Mailman's bin/dumpdb and see what it is,
but the simple fix is just remove the file.

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

From mark at msapiro.net  Tue Mar 27 12:28:36 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:28:36 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Only one list not working
In-Reply-To: <7d4cd5ea-292f-8c38-e27c-a7ff812fbcd0@gmail.com>
References: <7d4cd5ea-292f-8c38-e27c-a7ff812fbcd0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3cfe24fa-dad6-bd9e-54e8-0840da256af9@msapiro.net>

On 03/26/2018 04:01 PM, Javier wrote:
> 
> Only one of my lists does not work, the web interface of this list does.
> 
> When I send an email the list after a while I receive a message with the
> rejected connection.


Is this list's posting address in the same domain as lists that work?

If not, there is probably some DNS issue affecting mail to that domain.

What does the "rejected connection" email say.


> In the Postfix log I don't see any errors


What is in the Postfax log? Do you see a connection attempt?



> I don't see any errors in Mailman's logs either, but they are
> strangely empty.


Are you saying you have list's that work, but there is nothing in
Mailman's post, smtp or qrunner logs? If so, you aren't looking at the
correct logs.

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

From luscheina at yahoo.de  Tue Mar 27 12:52:50 2018
From: luscheina at yahoo.de (Christian F Buser)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:52:50 +0200
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Newbie User
In-Reply-To: <e6b2830d-2dc0-a96b-05bf-f88090ad864d@angenay.com>
References: <e6b2830d-2dc0-a96b-05bf-f88090ad864d@angenay.com>
Message-ID: <20180327185250721217.ee51587f@yahoo.de>

Hello David Elliott. On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:51:40 +0200, you wrote:

> I am a newbie to Mailman and cpanel and I need some help, please. I 
> have set up a mailing list for my tennis club (about 300 on list) and 
> it seems to work ok BUT each recipient only sees the mailing list 
> name rather than his own email name in the 'to' box. One of the 
> recipients recently did a 'reply to all' and consequently sent his 
> reply to the whole mailing list. I'm sure there must be a way to 
> prevent this but I can't find it!

Set all members to "moderated", with the exception or those who may post to the list. 

Christian 
-- 
Christian F. Buser, Hohle Gasse 6, CH-5507 Mellingen (Switzerland)      
Hilfe fuer Strassenkinder in Ghana: http://www.chance-for-children.org

From cpz at tuunq.com  Tue Mar 27 17:45:13 2018
From: cpz at tuunq.com (Carl Zwanzig)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:45:13 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Newbie User
In-Reply-To: <20180327185250721217.ee51587f@yahoo.de>
References: <e6b2830d-2dc0-a96b-05bf-f88090ad864d@angenay.com>
 <20180327185250721217.ee51587f@yahoo.de>
Message-ID: <6ab6acff-bab2-51f0-e095-bfc5d9468eb7@tuunq.com>

On 3/27/2018 9:52 AM, Christian F Buser via Mailman-Users wrote:
> Hello David Elliott. On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:51:40 +0200, you wrote:
> 
>> One of the recipients recently did a 'reply to all' and consequently
>> sent his reply to the whole mailing list. I'm sure there must be a way
>> to prevent this but I can't find it!
> Set all members to "moderated", with the exception or those who may post to the list.

Seems a bit harsh. Question is how you want the list to behave- to 
facilitate discussion or simply to make announcements. If the latter is 
preferred, then yes, setting all members to moderated will prevent them from 
posting.

OTOH, if the list's purpose is discussion, moderating all members becomes a 
bottleneck. In that case, user training is often the best route; explaining 
when it's appropriate to send to the list and when it's not. And there will 
-always- be errors.  (Scholars differ on whether the default action should 
be reply-to-list or reply-to-sender and there's nothing to be gained by 
trying to resolve that here.)

Later,

z!

From luscheina at yahoo.de  Tue Mar 27 18:21:30 2018
From: luscheina at yahoo.de (Christian F Buser)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:21:30 +0200
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Newbie User
In-Reply-To: <6ab6acff-bab2-51f0-e095-bfc5d9468eb7@tuunq.com>
References: <e6b2830d-2dc0-a96b-05bf-f88090ad864d@angenay.com>
 <20180327185250721217.ee51587f@yahoo.de>
 <6ab6acff-bab2-51f0-e095-bfc5d9468eb7@tuunq.com>
Message-ID: <20180328002130481366.8954c03f@yahoo.de>

Hello Carl Zwanzig. On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:45:13 -0700, you wrote:
> On 3/27/2018 9:52 AM, Christian F Buser via Mailman-Users wrote:
>> Hello David Elliott. On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:51:40 +0200, you wrote:
>> 
>>> One of the recipients recently did a 'reply to all' and consequently
>>> sent his reply to the whole mailing list. I'm sure there must be a way
>>> to prevent this but I can't find it!
>>
>> Set all members to "moderated", with the exception or those who may 
>> post to the list.
> 
> Seems a bit harsh. Question is how you want the list to behave- to 
> facilitate discussion or simply to make announcements. If the latter 
> is preferred, then yes, setting all members to moderated will prevent 
> them from posting.

If a "reply ro all" results in a message post to the list (which is normal) and the list owner says this is unwanted - then I think it should behave as an announcement list only. Otherwise, the message post should be acceptable. 

There is probably no easy way to distinguish between wanted / unwanted messages, if it is a discussion list. 

> OTOH, if the list's purpose is discussion, moderating all members 
> becomes a bottleneck. 

Of course, moderating too many users in a discussion list is a bad idea anyway. 

> In that case, user training is often the best 
> route; explaining when it's appropriate to send to the list and when 
> it's not. And there will -always- be errors.  (Scholars differ on 
> whether the default action should be reply-to-list or reply-to-sender 
> and there's nothing to be gained by trying to resolve that here.)

On a discussion list, I would set default reply- to-list. 

Christian 

-- 
Christian F. Buser, Hohle Gasse 6, CH-5507 Mellingen (Switzerland)      
Hilfe fuer Strassenkinder in Ghana: http://www.chance-for-children.org

From ahm at pixelloom.com  Tue Mar 27 14:59:26 2018
From: ahm at pixelloom.com (Nina Macdonald)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:59:26 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman backend doesn't work after domain name
 conversion--help wanted
Message-ID: <2a81585f-a251-cef3-31c1-51c2a1333a50@pixelloom.com>

A couple of weeks ago, a website called uhills.org was split off from 
the listservs associated with the community.? A new company took over 
the web site and moved it to 1and1. Because we have over 10 years of 
archives, taking up a lot of space, I wanted to keep the listservs 
(primarily one, uhills at uhills.org) on my server at Liquid Web. I ended 
up getting a new domain name, unihills.org and changing the names of the 
4 listservs in multiple places to let them run on *uni*hills.org instead 
of uhills.org.? The listservs themselves are running: emails come in and 
go out, but the backend does not work properly.? I am getting an error 
with the wrong domain name in the error log fairly frequently, but yet I 
can't create additions to the error log; the errors look like this:

Mar 25 23:37:02 2018 (24709) error opening list: uhills_uhills.org ,

and I have been unable to track down where else the domain name needs to 
be changed or what actions generate the error message.? I am uncertain 
whether this is what is causing the following problems:

  * Search for member doesn't work
  * Changing checkboxes for members doesn't make any difference
  * Can't delete or approve held postings (they do self-delete after a
    couple of days)
  * The login for the private archives doesn't work

We are running cpanel on CentOS at Liquid Web.? I would appreciate advice.

Thank you,

Nina Macdonald
-- 
Pixelloom Signature

Nina Macdonald
Owner & Founder, Pixelloom
voicemail: 877 583-3184
 ??????? cell: 949 422-9227



From mark at msapiro.net  Wed Mar 28 11:11:58 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:11:58 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman backend doesn't work after domain name
 conversion--help wanted
In-Reply-To: <2a81585f-a251-cef3-31c1-51c2a1333a50@pixelloom.com>
References: <2a81585f-a251-cef3-31c1-51c2a1333a50@pixelloom.com>
Message-ID: <3dac48e6-f733-42d5-b14b-08d99f9b83e7@msapiro.net>

On 03/27/2018 11:59 AM, Nina Macdonald wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago, a website called uhills.org was split off from
> the listservs associated with the community.


<https://wiki.list.org/DOC/Mailman%20is%20not%20Listserv>


> I am getting an error
> with the wrong domain name in the error log fairly frequently, but yet I
> can't create additions to the error log; the errors look like this:


What does "can't create additions to the error log" mean?


> Mar 25 23:37:02 2018 (24709) error opening list: uhills_uhills.org ,


What is the full traceback associated with this entry?


> and I have been unable to track down where else the domain name needs to
> be changed or what actions generate the error message.? I am uncertain
> whether this is what is causing the following problems:
> 
> ?* Search for member doesn't work
> ?* Changing checkboxes for members doesn't make any difference
> ?* Can't delete or approve held postings (they do self-delete after a
> ?? couple of days)
> ?* The login for the private archives doesn't work


There is probably an issue with the list's 'web_page_url'

Make sure that the Defaults.py/mm_cfg.py setting for
DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN, DEFAULT_URL_HOST and DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST are correct
(if changes are required, set them in mm_cfg.py, not Defaults.py) and
run fix_url.

See <https://wiki.list.org/x/4030616>, <https://wiki.list.org/x/4030592>
and <https://wiki.list.org/x/4030602>.


> We are running cpanel on CentOS at Liquid Web.? I would appreciate advice.


Also, see <https://wiki.list.org/DOC/Mailman%20and%20CPanel>


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

From mark at msapiro.net  Wed Mar 28 11:22:50 2018
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:22:50 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman backend doesn't work after domain name
 conversion--help wanted
In-Reply-To: <3dac48e6-f733-42d5-b14b-08d99f9b83e7@msapiro.net>
References: <2a81585f-a251-cef3-31c1-51c2a1333a50@pixelloom.com>
 <3dac48e6-f733-42d5-b14b-08d99f9b83e7@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <553947b6-21a5-0912-f577-38352ffcbc3c@msapiro.net>

On 03/28/2018 08:11 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 03/27/2018 11:59 AM, Nina Macdonald wrote:
> 
>> Mar 25 23:37:02 2018 (24709) error opening list: uhills_uhills.org ,
> 
> 
> What is the full traceback associated with this entry?


Actually, there won't be a traceback, but there should be a second line
with more specifics about the error.


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

From javitoom96 at gmail.com  Wed Mar 28 11:37:51 2018
From: javitoom96 at gmail.com (Javier)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:37:51 +0200
Subject: [Mailman-Users] Only one list not working
In-Reply-To: <3cfe24fa-dad6-bd9e-54e8-0840da256af9@msapiro.net>
References: <7d4cd5ea-292f-8c38-e27c-a7ff812fbcd0@gmail.com>
 <3cfe24fa-dad6-bd9e-54e8-0840da256af9@msapiro.net>
Message-ID: <803a2d16-0989-3bfe-2009-4c14c63089a5@gmail.com>

I've already solved the problem. It happened that the domain pointed to 
a server that had to forward the emails to my server but lacked the 
configuration to forward from one of the lists.

Thank you all and I apologize for the inconvenience. Greetings.

From fmouse at fmp.com  Sat Mar 31 14:31:35 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:31:35 -0500
Subject: [Mailman-Users] (relatively) new DMARC issues - and Gmail
Message-ID: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>

I've been working with a From-rewriting tool with code taken from
Mailman (thanks, Mark!) and discovered a couple of things which I
thought deserved posting about. I expect that they peripherally affect
Mailman, too.

At some point Amazon (amazon.com) started publishing a DMARC
"p=quarantine" policy, which means that any email which gets redirected
and hits my dmarc_shield piece is going to have its From address re-
written to "postmaster at fmp.com" (fmp.com has a proper SPF record).

I don't know what Gmail's policy is with regard to "p=quarantine" -
whether it rejects such email outright or relegates it to the
recipient's spam folder. I know that if the sending site publishes
"p=reject", redirected email is refused by Gmail at the front door.
I'll have to test the "p=quarantine" behavior.

Here's the really annoying thing. My dmarc_shield processor rewrites
the From header as per SOP for Mailman with the proper switch turned
on. The From header address becomes "postmaster at fmp.com" with the
original From address in the address comment (from xxx at yyz.com). If
the email didn't already have a Reply-To address, the original From
address is inserted as the Reply-To address. If a Gmail user replies to
such an email, the reply goes to the Reply-To address, but Gmail
**whitelists** the From address! Thereafter, any email which comes in
with a munged From address is accepted, bypassing Gmail's otherwise
pretty good spam filtering. I'm noticing a lot of spam email going out
with From addresses for which a DMARC "p=reject" policy is published,
which means that any such spam redirected to the Gmail user via FMP is
also whitelisted. Bah! It's a fucking war zone out there!

The only possible solution here would be to randomize the username
portion of the rewritten From address, which makes the email look more
like spam, and the Gmail user would end up with a whole lot of useless
whitelisted address which would need to be deleted. Not to mention the
fact that FMP's mail server might be blocked from sending ANY email to
Gmail.

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       | "The first casualty when
FMP Computer Services |         war comes is truth."
512-259-1190          |            
http://www.fmp.com    |     -- Hiram W Johnson



From Richard at Damon-Family.org  Sat Mar 31 14:50:56 2018
From: Richard at Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 14:50:56 -0400
Subject: [Mailman-Users] (relatively) new DMARC issues - and Gmail
In-Reply-To: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>
References: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>
Message-ID: <6a527a80-0448-d829-665c-d20f097ea080@Damon-Family.org>

On 3/31/18 2:31 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> I've been working with a From-rewriting tool with code taken from
> Mailman (thanks, Mark!) and discovered a couple of things which I
> thought deserved posting about. I expect that they peripherally affect
> Mailman, too.
>
> At some point Amazon (amazon.com) started publishing a DMARC
> "p=quarantine" policy, which means that any email which gets redirected
> and hits my dmarc_shield piece is going to have its From address re-
> written to "postmaster at fmp.com" (fmp.com has a proper SPF record).
>
> I don't know what Gmail's policy is with regard to "p=quarantine" -
> whether it rejects such email outright or relegates it to the
> recipient's spam folder. I know that if the sending site publishes
> "p=reject", redirected email is refused by Gmail at the front door.
> I'll have to test the "p=quarantine" behavior.
>
> Here's the really annoying thing. My dmarc_shield processor rewrites
> the From header as per SOP for Mailman with the proper switch turned
> on. The From header address becomes "postmaster at fmp.com" with the
> original From address in the address comment (from xxx at yyz.com). If
> the email didn't already have a Reply-To address, the original From
> address is inserted as the Reply-To address. If a Gmail user replies to
> such an email, the reply goes to the Reply-To address, but Gmail
> **whitelists** the From address! Thereafter, any email which comes in
> with a munged From address is accepted, bypassing Gmail's otherwise
> pretty good spam filtering. I'm noticing a lot of spam email going out
> with From addresses for which a DMARC "p=reject" policy is published,
> which means that any such spam redirected to the Gmail user via FMP is
> also whitelisted. Bah! It's a fucking war zone out there!
>
> The only possible solution here would be to randomize the username
> portion of the rewritten From address, which makes the email look more
> like spam, and the Gmail user would end up with a whole lot of useless
> whitelisted address which would need to be deleted. Not to mention the
> fact that FMP's mail server might be blocked from sending ANY email to
> Gmail.
>
To me the issue sounds like why is fmp.com forwarding spam?

If this is a case of fmp.com offering forwarding mailboxes to users, who 
might be using gmail as a final destination, then yes, fmp needs to try 
to be as good at detecting spam as gmail or users need to accept the 
increased spam levels.

Another option is to deterministically munge the from address so every 
incoming email address gets a unique fmp address that it represents (it 
doesn't have to be absolutely unique, mostly unique is likely good 
enough), something like replace the at with _at_ and add a tail wart 
like _dmarc at fmp.com (so you can have other addresses an not worry about 
possible overlaps with those) and use that as the from address. Then a 
reply will only whitelist that specific original from address.

-- 
Richard Damon


From fmouse at fmp.com  Sat Mar 31 15:35:12 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 14:35:12 -0500
Subject: [Mailman-Users] (relatively) new DMARC issues - and Gmail
In-Reply-To: <6a527a80-0448-d829-665c-d20f097ea080@Damon-Family.org>
References: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>
 <6a527a80-0448-d829-665c-d20f097ea080@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID: <1522524912.68575.125.camel@fmp.com>

On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 14:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> To me the issue sounds like why is fmp.com forwarding spam?
> 
> If this is a case of fmp.com offering forwarding mailboxes to users, who?
> might be using gmail as a final destination, then yes, fmp needs to try?
> to be as good at detecting spam as gmail or users need to accept the?
> increased spam levels.

If pigs could fly ....! ?I do the very best job I can of filtering spam
from inbound email, and get about 90% of it, maybe more, but fighting
spam is a forever job of whack-a-mole. I certainly wish that I could do
as good a job of parsing spam from legit email as Gmail does, but I'm a
one-person shop, and have many tasks. Gmail has dozens, perhaps
hundreds of very smart people assigned to managing their spam
filtering, and they do a very good job of it. I could _never_ hope to
match their efficiency or accuracy, nor could most small operations
such as FMP Computer Services.

The problem is that Gmail is whitelisting based on the From address,
rather than the Reply-To address, which should be an _option_ open to
users. On Google's scale of operation, I'm just a fly on a dog turd so
any feature which might benefit my users and subscribers is pretty much
a no-nevermind for them.

> Another option is to deterministically munge the from address so every?
> incoming email address gets a unique fmp address that it represents (it?
> doesn't have to be absolutely unique, mostly unique is likely good?
> enough), something like replace the at with _at_ and add a tail wart?
> like _dmarc at fmp.com?(so you can have other addresses an not worry about?
> possible overlaps with those) and use that as the from address. Then a?
> reply will only whitelist that specific original from address.

Which, as I noted in my original post, will cause the Gmail user's mail
account to end up with a whole lot of useless whitelisted address which
would need to be deleted, and FMP's server might well end up getting
blacklisted as a result.

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       | "The first casualty when
FMP Computer Services |         war comes is truth."
512-259-1190          |            
http://www.fmp.com    |     -- Hiram W Johnson


From Richard at Damon-Family.org  Sat Mar 31 17:57:22 2018
From: Richard at Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:57:22 -0400
Subject: [Mailman-Users] (relatively) new DMARC issues - and Gmail
In-Reply-To: <1522524912.68575.125.camel@fmp.com>
References: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>
 <6a527a80-0448-d829-665c-d20f097ea080@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522524912.68575.125.camel@fmp.com>
Message-ID: <d08f100d-d4ec-ce72-2c69-8d3d8a7aa180@Damon-Family.org>

On 3/31/18 3:35 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 14:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>> To me the issue sounds like why is fmp.com forwarding spam?
>>
>> If this is a case of fmp.com offering forwarding mailboxes to users, who
>> might be using gmail as a final destination, then yes, fmp needs to try
>> to be as good at detecting spam as gmail or users need to accept the
>> increased spam levels.
> If pigs could fly ....! ?I do the very best job I can of filtering spam
> from inbound email, and get about 90% of it, maybe more, but fighting
> spam is a forever job of whack-a-mole. I certainly wish that I could do
> as good a job of parsing spam from legit email as Gmail does, but I'm a
> one-person shop, and have many tasks. Gmail has dozens, perhaps
> hundreds of very smart people assigned to managing their spam
> filtering, and they do a very good job of it. I could _never_ hope to
> match their efficiency or accuracy, nor could most small operations
> such as FMP Computer Services.
But coming at least close is the job you sign up for in being a mail 
forwarder. You at least need to be good enough that you aren't seen by 
google as an uncaring domain, and maintain enough information that they 
can continue to do what they do well.
>
> The problem is that Gmail is whitelisting based on the From address,
> rather than the Reply-To address, which should be an _option_ open to
> users. On Google's scale of operation, I'm just a fly on a dog turd so
> any feature which might benefit my users and subscribers is pretty much
> a no-nevermind for them.
Which is why I was saying make a 1:1 mapping of From addresses to 
Reply-To addresses.
>
>> Another option is to deterministically munge the from address so every
>> incoming email address gets a unique fmp address that it represents (it
>> doesn't have to be absolutely unique, mostly unique is likely good
>> enough), something like replace the at with _at_ and add a tail wart
>> like _dmarc at fmp.com?(so you can have other addresses an not worry about
>> possible overlaps with those) and use that as the from address. Then a
>> reply will only whitelist that specific original from address.
> Which, as I noted in my original post, will cause the Gmail user's mail
> account to end up with a whole lot of useless whitelisted address which
> would need to be deleted, and FMP's server might well end up getting
> blacklisted as a result.
No more than if GMail did implement a white-list on Reply-To addresses.


-- 
Richard Damon


From fmouse at fmp.com  Sat Mar 31 18:33:54 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:33:54 -0500
Subject: [Mailman-Users] (relatively) new DMARC issues - and Gmail
In-Reply-To: <d08f100d-d4ec-ce72-2c69-8d3d8a7aa180@Damon-Family.org>
References: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>
 <6a527a80-0448-d829-665c-d20f097ea080@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522524912.68575.125.camel@fmp.com>
 <d08f100d-d4ec-ce72-2c69-8d3d8a7aa180@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID: <1522535634.68575.167.camel@fmp.com>

On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 17:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/31/18 3:35 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 14:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > 
> > > To me the issue sounds like why is fmp.com forwarding spam?
> > > 
> > > If this is a case of fmp.com offering forwarding mailboxes to users, who
> > > might be using gmail as a final destination, then yes, fmp needs to try
> > > to be as good at detecting spam as gmail or users need to accept the
> > > increased spam levels.
> > If pigs could fly ....! ?I do the very best job I can of filtering spam
> > from inbound email, and get about 90% of it, maybe more, but fighting
> > spam is a forever job of whack-a-mole. I certainly wish that I could do
> > as good a job of parsing spam from legit email as Gmail does, but I'm a
> > one-person shop, and have many tasks. Gmail has dozens, perhaps
> > hundreds of very smart people assigned to managing their spam
> > filtering, and they do a very good job of it. I could _never_ hope to
> > match their efficiency or accuracy, nor could most small operations
> > such as FMP Computer Services.
>
> But coming at least close is the job you sign up for in being a mail?
> forwarder. You at least need to be good enough that you aren't seen by?
> google as an uncaring domain, and maintain enough information that they?
> can continue to do what they do well.

Rest assured, we "come at least close". This is not an option here,
it's a necessity. Email redirection is a feature of my MTA (Courier)
and has been offered since FMP went into business in the 1990s. It's a
standard feature of many MTAs and many ESPs offer it.

I've had to deal with Gmail's honey-potting before, and I can do it
again if necessary. I don't imagine that you've ever done commercial
email administration, Richard, or you might have something constructive
to say instead of just spewing admonitions to "do better".

> > 
> > The problem is that Gmail is whitelisting based on the From address,
> > rather than the Reply-To address, which should be an _option_ open to
> > users. On Google's scale of operation, I'm just a fly on a dog turd so
> > any feature which might benefit my users and subscribers is pretty much
> > a no-nevermind for them.
>
> Which is why I was saying make a 1:1 mapping of From addresses to?
> Reply-To addresses.

The From address _has_ to be from an address at fmp.com, which is the
reason for From-munging in the first place. If you don't understand how
DMARC works, or the problems it causes, Mark, or someone else on this
list can send you to a reference on it. The Reply-To address is EITHER
the original Reply-To address on the received email, or, if it had
none, the ORIGINAL From address. Mapping the Reply-To address to the
munged From address makes no sense at all.

> > > Another option is to deterministically munge the from address so every
> > > incoming email address gets a unique fmp address that it represents (it
> > > doesn't have to be absolutely unique, mostly unique is likely good
> > > enough), something like replace the at with _at_ and add a tail wart
> > > like _dmarc at fmp.com?(so you can have other addresses an not worry about
> > > possible overlaps with those) and use that as the from address. Then a
> > > reply will only whitelist that specific original from address.
> > Which, as I noted in my original post, will cause the Gmail user's mail
> > account to end up with a whole lot of useless whitelisted address which
> > would need to be deleted, and FMP's server might well end up getting
> > blacklisted as a result.
> No more than if GMail did implement a white-list on Reply-To addresses.

No, because the Reply-To address is the _original_ From address. Such a
whitelisting would be useless as long as Gmail's policy with regard to
DMARC rejection remains in place, but unless we get into some kind of
meta-heading BS, it's the best we might do.

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       | "The first casualty when
FMP Computer Services |         war comes is truth."
512-259-1190          |            
http://www.fmp.com    |     -- Hiram W Johnson



From fmouse at fmp.com  Sat Mar 31 18:55:14 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:55:14 -0500
Subject: [Mailman-Users] (relatively) new DMARC issues - and Gmail
In-Reply-To: <1522535634.68575.167.camel@fmp.com>
References: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>
 <6a527a80-0448-d829-665c-d20f097ea080@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522524912.68575.125.camel@fmp.com>
 <d08f100d-d4ec-ce72-2c69-8d3d8a7aa180@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522535634.68575.167.camel@fmp.com>
Message-ID: <1522536914.68575.176.camel@fmp.com>

On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 17:33 -0500, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> I've had to deal with Gmail's honey-potting before, and I can do it
> again if necessary. I don't imagine that you've ever done commercial
> email administration, Richard, or you might have something constructive
> to say instead of just spewing admonitions to "do better".

And in any event, my original post was a FYI, mainly concerned with the
interaction between Google's Gmail policies and _any_ system which
munges headers to deal with DMARC, as MM does - combined with the fact
that a lot of spammers these days seem to be sending mail over From
addresses which publish a DMARC p=reject policy. This is a particular
nasty combination which can effectively neutralize Gmail's spam
blocking.

I'm not looking for advice from anyone on how to run FMP's mail system,
nor for admonitions to do a better job of spam blocking, so if that's
what you want to say, please email me personally because it's OT for
this list.

If anyone has insights into this issue that _don't_ relate to FMP's
email service, or which constitute constructive insights based on
knowledge and experience, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, please just
leave it!

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       | "The first casualty when
FMP Computer Services |         war comes is truth."
512-259-1190          |            
http://www.fmp.com    |     -- Hiram W Johnson


From Richard at Damon-Family.org  Sat Mar 31 19:12:12 2018
From: Richard at Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:12:12 -0400
Subject: [Mailman-Users] (relatively) new DMARC issues - and Gmail
In-Reply-To: <1522535634.68575.167.camel@fmp.com>
References: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>
 <6a527a80-0448-d829-665c-d20f097ea080@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522524912.68575.125.camel@fmp.com>
 <d08f100d-d4ec-ce72-2c69-8d3d8a7aa180@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522535634.68575.167.camel@fmp.com>
Message-ID: <48981ebf-acf4-a629-6b2f-2e7df8b67ceb@Damon-Family.org>

On 3/31/18 6:33 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 17:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/31/18 3:35 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 14:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> To me the issue sounds like why is fmp.com forwarding spam?
>>>>
>>>> If this is a case of fmp.com offering forwarding mailboxes to users, who
>>>> might be using gmail as a final destination, then yes, fmp needs to try
>>>> to be as good at detecting spam as gmail or users need to accept the
>>>> increased spam levels.
>>> If pigs could fly ....! ?I do the very best job I can of filtering spam
>>> from inbound email, and get about 90% of it, maybe more, but fighting
>>> spam is a forever job of whack-a-mole. I certainly wish that I could do
>>> as good a job of parsing spam from legit email as Gmail does, but I'm a
>>> one-person shop, and have many tasks. Gmail has dozens, perhaps
>>> hundreds of very smart people assigned to managing their spam
>>> filtering, and they do a very good job of it. I could _never_ hope to
>>> match their efficiency or accuracy, nor could most small operations
>>> such as FMP Computer Services.
>> But coming at least close is the job you sign up for in being a mail
>> forwarder. You at least need to be good enough that you aren't seen by
>> google as an uncaring domain, and maintain enough information that they
>> can continue to do what they do well.
> Rest assured, we "come at least close". This is not an option here,
> it's a necessity. Email redirection is a feature of my MTA (Courier)
> and has been offered since FMP went into business in the 1990s. It's a
> standard feature of many MTAs and many ESPs offer it.
>
> I've had to deal with Gmail's honey-potting before, and I can do it
> again if necessary. I don't imagine that you've ever done commercial
> email administration, Richard, or you might have something constructive
> to say instead of just spewing admonitions to "do better".
I will admit, that I haven't had to do that sort of email 
administration. I have run mail servers for much smaller operations, and 
do understand the difficulties (one reason I don't anymore). Just 
pointing out that if you have decided to go into that business, you 
really need a better story than 'its hard' to convince customers to use 
you if you can't meet there expectations and needs.
>
>>> The problem is that Gmail is whitelisting based on the From address,
>>> rather than the Reply-To address, which should be an _option_ open to
>>> users. On Google's scale of operation, I'm just a fly on a dog turd so
>>> any feature which might benefit my users and subscribers is pretty much
>>> a no-nevermind for them.
>> Which is why I was saying make a 1:1 mapping of From addresses to
>> Reply-To addresses.
> The From address _has_ to be from an address at fmp.com, which is the
> reason for From-munging in the first place. If you don't understand how
> DMARC works, or the problems it causes, Mark, or someone else on this
> list can send you to a reference on it. The Reply-To address is EITHER
> the original Reply-To address on the received email, or, if it had
> none, the ORIGINAL From address. Mapping the Reply-To address to the
> munged From address makes no sense at all.
>
>>>> Another option is to deterministically munge the from address so every
>>>> incoming email address gets a unique fmp address that it represents (it
>>>> doesn't have to be absolutely unique, mostly unique is likely good
>>>> enough), something like replace the at with _at_ and add a tail wart
>>>> like _dmarc at fmp.com?(so you can have other addresses an not worry about
>>>> possible overlaps with those) and use that as the from address. Then a
>>>> reply will only whitelist that specific original from address.
>>> Which, as I noted in my original post, will cause the Gmail user's mail
>>> account to end up with a whole lot of useless whitelisted address which
>>> would need to be deleted, and FMP's server might well end up getting
>>> blacklisted as a result.
>> No more than if GMail did implement a white-list on Reply-To addresses.
> No, because the Reply-To address is the _original_ From address. Such a
> whitelisting would be useless as long as Gmail's policy with regard to
> DMARC rejection remains in place, but unless we get into some kind of
> meta-heading BS, it's the best we might do.
>
I think you aren't understanding the munging I am suggesting. If I sent 
a message that went through your system, (and my setup triggered your 
munging) would be something like:

richard_at_damon.family.org_dmarc at fmp.com

This, and exactly this would be the from address for every message I 
sent through your system to a gmail user. This would be the only address 
that would get white-listed due to my messages. There should be no 
additional whitelisting load due to this, unless I also contact them 
outside your system.

-- 
Richard Damon


From Richard at Damon-Family.org  Sat Mar 31 20:32:42 2018
From: Richard at Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:32:42 -0400
Subject: [Mailman-Users] (relatively) new DMARC issues - and Gmail
In-Reply-To: <1522536914.68575.176.camel@fmp.com>
References: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>
 <6a527a80-0448-d829-665c-d20f097ea080@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522524912.68575.125.camel@fmp.com>
 <d08f100d-d4ec-ce72-2c69-8d3d8a7aa180@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522535634.68575.167.camel@fmp.com> <1522536914.68575.176.camel@fmp.com>
Message-ID: <e82eb39e-b296-d82c-2402-4c7878df9243@Damon-Family.org>

On 3/31/18 6:55 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 17:33 -0500, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
>> I've had to deal with Gmail's honey-potting before, and I can do it
>> again if necessary. I don't imagine that you've ever done commercial
>> email administration, Richard, or you might have something constructive
>> to say instead of just spewing admonitions to "do better".
> And in any event, my original post was a FYI, mainly concerned with the
> interaction between Google's Gmail policies and _any_ system which
> munges headers to deal with DMARC, as MM does - combined with the fact
> that a lot of spammers these days seem to be sending mail over From
> addresses which publish a DMARC p=reject policy. This is a particular
> nasty combination which can effectively neutralize Gmail's spam
> blocking.
>
> I'm not looking for advice from anyone on how to run FMP's mail system,
> nor for admonitions to do a better job of spam blocking, so if that's
> what you want to say, please email me personally because it's OT for
> this list.
>
> If anyone has insights into this issue that _don't_ relate to FMP's
> email service, or which constitute constructive insights based on
> knowledge and experience, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, please just
> leave it!
>
I see the issue as largely not as big of an issue for most mailing list 
than a more generic mail forwarding system. I suspect most mailing lists 
are setup for only subscribers posting, which cuts out a lot of the spam 
issues, and many of those also it is preferred to reply to list instead 
of poster so the munged from isn't as important.

I suspect the major use of non-subscriber lists would be support lists 
where the subscribers are the support team, so more able to handle the 
technical challenges of dealing with the spam issues.

For a mailing list, because reply-all is more often used, it make 
differentiated munged From's (if needed), you likely want to plus-hack 
the From line (listname+sender at listdomain), though that might also 
create duplicate posts.

-- 
Richard Damon


From fmouse at fmp.com  Sat Mar 31 22:54:20 2018
From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 21:54:20 -0500
Subject: [Mailman-Users] (relatively) new DMARC issues - and Gmail
In-Reply-To: <48981ebf-acf4-a629-6b2f-2e7df8b67ceb@Damon-Family.org>
References: <1522521095.68575.108.camel@fmp.com>
 <6a527a80-0448-d829-665c-d20f097ea080@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522524912.68575.125.camel@fmp.com>
 <d08f100d-d4ec-ce72-2c69-8d3d8a7aa180@Damon-Family.org>
 <1522535634.68575.167.camel@fmp.com>
 <48981ebf-acf4-a629-6b2f-2e7df8b67ceb@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID: <1522551260.68575.238.camel@fmp.com>

On Sat, 2018-03-31 at 19:12 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> I think you aren't understanding the munging I am suggesting. If I sent?
> a message that went through your system, (and my setup triggered your?
> munging) would be something like:
> 
> richard_at_damon.family.org_dmarc at fmp.com
> 
> This, and exactly this would be the from address for every message I?
> sent through your system to a gmail user. This would be the only address?
> that would get white-listed due to my messages. There should be no?
> additional whitelisting load due to this, unless I also contact them?
> outside your system.

This is an interesting idea.

-- 
Lindsay Haisley       |  "Humor will get you through times of no humor
FMP Computer Services |      better than no humor will get you through
512-259-1190          |         times of humor."
http://www.fmp.com    |            - Butch Hancock