From estlibit@quickstockpower.com Fri Dec 22 17:11:58 2006 From: estlibit@quickstockpower.com (estlibit@quickstockpower.com) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] New Internet Casino page. $10 free on signup!!!!! Message-ID: <0u3a0fn.mfi58k@mx09.quickstockpower.com>

We've already paid out over a cool MILLION DOLLARS to WINNERS just like YOU.

Enter the Finest, Highest Paying Casino Online

$25,000 WINNERS are cashing in at our casino DAILY. Grab YOUR share of this wealth pool and open an account now. We'll bring the finest, most secure, highest paying casino on the Net right to your desktop.

We deliver the best games, like REAL LAS VEGAS STYLE BLACKJACK plus Caribbean Stud, Draw Poker and LOTS of the loosest Slot Machines you'll ever find. You're just a click away from High Paying Winning Action.

FREE $10 SIGN UP for EVERY new player.
CLICK HERE To Enter The Casino and Win Big Now

3D JAVA & Muti-Player.

Play the best online Casino in the world right now.

NO DOWNLOADS necessary.

INSTANT ACCESS

High quality, totally secure and private CASINO FUN, right on your computer in the comfort and privacy of home.

PLAY WITH A PROVEN GAMING ORGANIZATION.

Your privacy is taken very seriously and is assured.

WIN BIG at our Virtual Tables and Cash Out Instantly!

To Be Removed From Future Mailings: CLICK HERE

From msapiro at value.net Sat Dec 2 01:04:02 2006 From: msapiro at value.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:04:02 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] The age old question - virtual domains In-Reply-To: <016801c71439$30b750c0$650aa8c0@office> References: <016801c71439$30b750c0$650aa8c0@office> Message-ID: <4570C2F2.70300@value.net> Michael Kabot wrote: > > I've got this all working well. The ONLY issue that I can see is that I > need to have mailman munge two email addresses... > - In the mail that is forwarded to the list members, the Reply-To and "on > behalf of" of the person who sent the email needs to be put back in. Based > on the forwarding, it is showing up as - > - In that same email, change the --bounces > email to just -bounces. > > Can someone help me with two things > 1. I need a pointer to where in the code to do the munge above. > 2. Any gotcha's you can think of to this idea? These are all in SMTPDirect.py, but they are tricky because bounce processing is involved. See for some discussion of this. There was also a recent discussion of sender header munging on this list. See , and , and look for threads "Sender field" and "effects of not rewriting the Sender header". -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From joe at skyrush.com Mon Dec 4 21:52:23 2006 From: joe at skyrush.com (Joe Peterson) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:52:23 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Postfix/virtual-mailman not compatible when using dedicated destination (like "localhost") Message-ID: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> I wanted to post this to the developer list and see if there have been any previous thoughts on my situation and also if there are related features being developed for 3.0 (if so, there's probably no point in patching 2.x). Anyway, my postfix configuration, although probably not rare, seems to be different that many. In my case, all of my domains are "virtual". I have real unix users, and in order to have the same email account name in different domains, I make a user with "name-domain". In my postfix virtual file, I map "name at domain" to name-domain, however, since I do not want to pick one of my actual domains as the default destination, I set $mydestination to "localhost", requiring me to map "name at domain" to "name-domain at localhost". The benefit is that there is no domain to which "name-domain at domain" would work (I do not want this to work as a side effect). Sorry for the long description!! :) Anyway, give the above, without modifying MTA/Postfix.py (and it's a trivial mod, I know), there is no way to make Mailman's automatic postfix alias stuff completely work. I now have my own auto-generated virtual file and I do not use virtual-mailman, but I'd rather take advantage of it if I could. There's another guy in my situation who patched Postfix.py, and I recently contacted him to see if he's every communicated with you guys or submitted a patch. He said no, but he's be glad if I did. So that brings me here! :) I looked at the latest svn code, and I did not see something like this implemented. His site, which describes all of this, is: http://www.qnan.org/~pmw/howtos/mailman-virtuals.html I've submitted patches for Mailman before, and I'd be glad to do one again, but I wanted to ask: 1) Do you see benefit to adding a variable that would define this right-hand-side domain (e.g. "localhost") for virtual-mailman? 2) What is a good name for the variable? (POSTFIX_VIRTUAL_DESTINATION?) Thanks, Joe From tkikuchi at is.kochi-u.ac.jp Tue Dec 5 00:58:56 2006 From: tkikuchi at is.kochi-u.ac.jp (Tokio Kikuchi) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:58:56 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Postfix/virtual-mailman not compatible when using dedicated destination (like "localhost") In-Reply-To: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> References: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> Message-ID: <4574B640.4080700@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> Hi, Joe Peterson wrote: > > http://www.qnan.org/~pmw/howtos/mailman-virtuals.html > In mailman-2.2, Postfix.py is considerably patched from the current version, especially making use of LMTP interface. New configuration output is summarized in http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2006-November/019307.html (you should convert back ' at ' -> '@') In this model, your '@localhost' corresponds to '@dom1.example.com' and all your list and personal maiboxes are to 'dom2.example.com'. You need no individual listname(-subqueue) destination in aliases/virtual/transport files. Only one line dom2.example.com lmtp:localhost:8025 in transport file. You only have to manage /etc/postfix/virtual for personal accounts. Is this suffice your needs? > I've submitted patches for Mailman before, and I'd be glad to do one > again, but I wanted to ask: > > 1) Do you see benefit to adding a variable that would define this > right-hand-side domain (e.g. "localhost") for virtual-mailman? > > 2) What is a good name for the variable? (POSTFIX_VIRTUAL_DESTINATION?) -- Tokio Kikuchi, tkikuchi at is.kochi-u.ac.jp http://weather.is.kochi-u.ac.jp/ From barry at python.org Tue Dec 5 01:18:23 2006 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:18:23 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Postfix/virtual-mailman not compatible when using dedicated destination (like "localhost") In-Reply-To: <4574B640.4080700@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> References: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> <4574B640.4080700@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Tokio Kikuchi wrote: > In mailman-2.2, Postfix.py is considerably patched from the current > version, especially making use of LMTP interface. New configuration > output is summarized in > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2006-November/ > 019307.html > (you should convert back ' at ' -> '@') > > In this model, your '@localhost' corresponds to '@dom1.example.com' > and > all your list and personal maiboxes are to 'dom2.example.com'. You > need > no individual listname(-subqueue) destination in > aliases/virtual/transport files. Only one line > dom2.example.com lmtp:localhost:8025 > in transport file. You only have to manage /etc/postfix/virtual for > personal accounts. > > Is this suffice your needs? The other thing is that you'll get the individual -subqueue entries if you don't want to use LMTP_ONLY_DOMAINS (presumably because you can't create a separate subdomain for your lists). Right? - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBRXS61HEjvBPtnXfVAQLH3AQAtbKr7JfW6AulxhCWhRUyhF5zL5u8mgNN 0Hk90G12ch0M8DZm6gA6XWqr0fL314p9e7Jrzd/ikTY5L6ZbjYsHju15Y1oVbWSt 1SNN2RmiShz3f6OwNCe4KvQIUjiqLMJu+Qg3KMw4EBypodxaupOzWM+3ZMkdPnWh k0kVdLmdL18= =Xq4L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From barry at python.org Tue Dec 5 01:25:02 2006 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:25:02 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Postfix/virtual-mailman not compatible when using dedicated destination (like "localhost") In-Reply-To: References: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> <4574B640.4080700@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> Message-ID: <7ABC4852-2279-4E35-A369-1FACC764D588@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 4, 2006, at 7:18 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Tokio Kikuchi wrote: > >> In mailman-2.2, Postfix.py is considerably patched from the current >> version, especially making use of LMTP interface. New configuration >> output is summarized in >> >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2006-November/ >> 019307.html >> (you should convert back ' at ' -> '@') >> >> In this model, your '@localhost' corresponds to '@dom1.example.com' >> and >> all your list and personal maiboxes are to 'dom2.example.com'. You >> need >> no individual listname(-subqueue) destination in >> aliases/virtual/transport files. Only one line >> dom2.example.com lmtp:localhost:8025 >> in transport file. You only have to manage /etc/postfix/virtual for >> personal accounts. >> >> Is this suffice your needs? > > The other thing is that you'll get the individual -subqueue entries > if you don't want to use LMTP_ONLY_DOMAINS (presumably because you > can't create a separate subdomain for your lists). Right? I realize that in context, this is confusing. In Mailman 2.2 if you don't use LMTP_ONLY_DOMAINS, you'll get the individual -subqueue entries in the transport file, but I believe you will not have name collisions because the same entries do not need to be added to the alias files. LMTP delivery rocks! (Thanks to Tokio :). - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBRXS8X3EjvBPtnXfVAQIXdgQAtcsB5O7Mpw4Q5ER6V3wf5Y5Db4ugoR2P jq3Dk+UXTZZ+Uwa88r6X2qlR4GChfXp3CjGvwYcQUjhpP3R3PGHCznfQhANC+ZJH kQtLyP9PIwrOT1eS3sVvgive5U93q7VuOONI0SX1ZFiVXBSUNYH5wOY8+x5QhlcI Or5i+NPTvGM= =SJTJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tkikuchi at is.kochi-u.ac.jp Tue Dec 5 01:28:17 2006 From: tkikuchi at is.kochi-u.ac.jp (Tokio Kikuchi) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:28:17 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Postfix/virtual-mailman not compatible when using dedicated destination (like "localhost") In-Reply-To: References: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> <4574B640.4080700@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> Message-ID: <4574BD21.5000307@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> Sorry, I forgot to reply-all. > The other thing is that you'll get the individual -subqueue entries > if you don't want to use LMTP_ONLY_DOMAINS (presumably because you > can't create a separate subdomain for your lists). Right? Yeah, right. :-) LMTP_ONLY may be a little bit confusing because you can bypass this by /etc/postfix/virutal. MOSTLY_LMTP_DOMAINS ? -- Tokio Kikuchi, tkikuchi at is.kochi-u.ac.jp http://weather.is.kochi-u.ac.jp/ From barry at python.org Tue Dec 5 02:03:15 2006 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:03:15 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Postfix/virtual-mailman not compatible when using dedicated destination (like "localhost") In-Reply-To: <4574BD21.5000307@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> References: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> <4574B640.4080700@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> <4574BD21.5000307@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> Message-ID: <9A7A4B27-E893-48C2-9657-64A82172FCDD@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 4, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Tokio Kikuchi wrote: > LMTP_ONLY may be a little bit confusing because you can bypass this by > /etc/postfix/virutal. MOSTLY_LMTP_DOMAINS ? LMTP_TRANSPORT_DOMAINS? Also, will this variable have applicability to other LMTP-supporting MTAs? If so, then keeping it generic is good, otherwise we might want POSTFIX_LMTP_TRANSPORT_DOMAINS. Thoughts? - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBRXTFV3EjvBPtnXfVAQKkgwP/WnFMkSK25tZWkhuY7mOgL6imzpUdIuZd UUViP91UzaT4uRAbOavGjkHuo5je6/XqTTsWjhGmGg2V9NTzt1Vn31Hwc13Hr+eh cMoMh4X8qr1f4Q08ATSSxwiV4As4zn2u0eLjg5DeWTTUOo2ljpkMqqpDEonaWlmq 5MsilmtoInw= =U1sp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From joe at skyrush.com Tue Dec 5 15:12:50 2006 From: joe at skyrush.com (Joe Peterson) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:12:50 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Postfix/virtual-mailman not compatible when using dedicated destination (like "localhost") In-Reply-To: <7ABC4852-2279-4E35-A369-1FACC764D588@python.org> References: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> <4574B640.4080700@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> <7ABC4852-2279-4E35-A369-1FACC764D588@python.org> Message-ID: <45757E62.3030800@skyrush.com> Thanks guys - I have never messed with LMTP. It looks like it indeed is appropriate for local delivery (I am starting to read up on it now). I'll have to do some more Postfix experimenting! I do not have Mailman 2.2 installed on my mail server (I am at 2.1.9), so I cannot try it out immediately, but I will keep this in mind, and I *think* it is a way to solve the issue I have, especially if LMTP would be better to use even for my non-mailman virtuals anyway (I'll play around with this). However, if the only reason to use LMTP would be to allow Mailman's virtual stuff to work (and if there are disadvantages to using it), I could imagine that having a config variable for a destination domain might still be useful for non-LMTP cases (again, I need to study LMTP a little more). -Joe Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Dec 4, 2006, at 7:18 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > >> On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Tokio Kikuchi wrote: > >>> In mailman-2.2, Postfix.py is considerably patched from the current >>> version, especially making use of LMTP interface. New configuration >>> output is summarized in >>> >>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2006-November/ >>> 019307.html >>> (you should convert back ' at ' -> '@') >>> >>> In this model, your '@localhost' corresponds to '@dom1.example.com' >>> and >>> all your list and personal maiboxes are to 'dom2.example.com'. You >>> need >>> no individual listname(-subqueue) destination in >>> aliases/virtual/transport files. Only one line >>> dom2.example.com lmtp:localhost:8025 >>> in transport file. You only have to manage /etc/postfix/virtual for >>> personal accounts. >>> >>> Is this suffice your needs? >> The other thing is that you'll get the individual -subqueue entries >> if you don't want to use LMTP_ONLY_DOMAINS (presumably because you >> can't create a separate subdomain for your lists). Right? > > I realize that in context, this is confusing. In Mailman 2.2 if you > don't use LMTP_ONLY_DOMAINS, you'll get the individual -subqueue > entries in the transport file, but I believe you will not have name > collisions because the same entries do not need to be added to the > alias files. LMTP delivery rocks! (Thanks to Tokio :). > > -Barry > _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/joe%40skyrush.com Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp From barry at python.org Tue Dec 5 15:23:54 2006 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:23:54 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Postfix/virtual-mailman not compatible when using dedicated destination (like "localhost") In-Reply-To: <45757E62.3030800@skyrush.com> References: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> <4574B640.4080700@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> <7ABC4852-2279-4E35-A369-1FACC764D588@python.org> <45757E62.3030800@skyrush.com> Message-ID: <69584020-75D4-47D6-BB1B-323719E26CF3@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 5, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Joe Peterson wrote: > I do not have Mailman 2.2 installed on my mail server (I am at 2.1.9), > so I cannot try it out immediately, but I will keep this in mind, > and I > *think* it is a way to solve the issue I have, especially if LMTP > would > be better to use even for my non-mailman virtuals anyway (I'll play > around with this). Mailman 2.2 isn't near production ready yet, however I could imagine someone back porting the LMTP support into Mailman 2.1 -- unofficially. I don't want to officially support it for Mailman 2.1, but it would be a fairly contained set of patches so it could be added to the contrib directory or some such. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBRXWA/3EjvBPtnXfVAQKJDgQAhUd9zm8unUtRoxsAt0wZhk/KXRWiiTHq kNSrGJbtuT/P5L53lnSH3TCagvMQM7RJnAFVesMr97WqOjnfVXlrVnBlkJEmcYN6 CIN+pQTTke36Tm2qpt8fCQUtpGjg2NmDeFA9gh0o3+QxEY6Dwr5H8egfvRjYyX8k BmXqgA8LiY0= =+kjn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From joe at skyrush.com Tue Dec 5 15:41:27 2006 From: joe at skyrush.com (Joe Peterson) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 07:41:27 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Postfix/virtual-mailman not compatible when using dedicated destination (like "localhost") In-Reply-To: <69584020-75D4-47D6-BB1B-323719E26CF3@python.org> References: <45748A87.7030904@skyrush.com> <4574B640.4080700@is.kochi-u.ac.jp> <7ABC4852-2279-4E35-A369-1FACC764D588@python.org> <45757E62.3030800@skyrush.com> <69584020-75D4-47D6-BB1B-323719E26CF3@python.org> Message-ID: <45758517.6010800@skyrush.com> I could probably just informally replace the needed files if they can "plug in" to 2.1.9, if that's easier than creating a patch. I won't have time until next week to try it out, but I'd be glad to if it helps! -Thanks, Joe Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Dec 5, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Joe Peterson wrote: > >> I do not have Mailman 2.2 installed on my mail server (I am at 2.1.9), >> so I cannot try it out immediately, but I will keep this in mind, >> and I >> *think* it is a way to solve the issue I have, especially if LMTP >> would >> be better to use even for my non-mailman virtuals anyway (I'll play >> around with this). > > Mailman 2.2 isn't near production ready yet, however I could imagine > someone back porting the LMTP support into Mailman 2.1 -- > unofficially. I don't want to officially support it for Mailman 2.1, > but it would be a fairly contained set of patches so it could be > added to the contrib directory or some such. > > -Barry > From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Wed Dec 6 12:21:46 2006 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:21:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Search engine + authentication Message-ID: Dear folks, I've just combined Namazu (http://www.namazu.org/index.html.en) with Mailman as described in Tom Morrison's article (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2004-June/037584.html) However I found that unathenticated/unauthorized users can search in any list archive. After a few experimental solutions finally I rewrote Lindsay Haisley's nmz_wrapper.cgi script (http://www.fmp.com/namazu/). Now it is called /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/search.py and uses the same authentication mechanism as /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/private.py does. I use Debian binary version of mailman and I did not want to recompile the package. However I needed a new cgi-wrapper named /usr/lib/cgi-bin/mailman/search to call search.py with proper setgid settings. So I just patched an other wrapper: perl -p -e 's/rmlist/search/g' rmlist > search (Yes I know this is a rude hack. :-) My question is: is it possible to add such a wrapper to the next release as hook for any third party search engine? Gabor From barry at python.org Fri Dec 8 18:47:28 2006 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:47:28 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] [Mailman-Users] Mailman archive messages(not rm, but install!) In-Reply-To: <20061208161009.GA19948@allhats.xcski.com> References: <20061208003438.GA30566@allhats.xcski.com> <20061208155116.GL16276@psilocybe.teonanacatl.org> <20061208161009.GA19948@allhats.xcski.com> Message-ID: <94C8E16B-2BC9-457B-8EBA-5E7B96C58364@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 8, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Paul Tomblin wrote: >> In that case, shouldn't any message that reaches mailman with an >> unescaped From_ line in the body already be handled properly? It >> seems like something else must be borked. That or all of the >> messages >> in a list mbox that contain unescaped From_ lines got there from >> really old versions of Mailman/python. > > That is distinctly possible. The archives in question go back to > 1998. I > didn't keep track of when the *last* unescaped From_ line was put > in the > archives. Sorry, I should have been clearer that the /default/ behavior of the generator is to mangle From_ lines. So it's true that nothing in Mailman should need to be changed. However, it's also true that in the distant past, there were some bugs in the mbox implementation which would cause broken mbox files to be written. A quick scan through the svn logs jogs my memory: r6341 on 2003-04-17 was added to fix a message separation bug. I don't know how long that bug was lurking, but the fix puts it just before the 2.1.2 release according to the NEWS file. I'll bet that it existed from 2.1 final (Dec 2002) until 2.1.2 (Apr 2003), the latter which was probably released specifically to fix this problem! Note that this bug had no effect on the archiving of new messages on the fly. Those always got archived correctly. But the message was appended to the mbox file incorrectly which meant that if you regenerated your archives, you'd be screwed. This was what bin/ cleanarch was intended to fix. BTW, one less ambitious way to participate here to help fix things would be to improve bin/cleanarch. At the very least, you should be able to run that script and get an mbox file that bin/arch can use to DTRT. It would also be nice if bin/arch was able to compensate for running out of memory, possibly by changing it to fork a sub-process to do the actual archiving with the parent process pre-chunking the workload for the child. Anyway, I'm cc'ing mailman-developers. Further discussion of how to improve matters should be conducted on that list (and mailman-users should be removed). - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBRXmlMHEjvBPtnXfVAQIFYAP/W2LEOrKhqrB6sDniHKADAV5iMuLm19zu nUkvrJpOumD78+tRDa1DCQG8RaCSAZ7bNkTA2VwIUgcX1I4+9d7ylklonQSiRJzB xbg+OBD5+x5q+Cdo9qX1dhlGWTdmrSReN0CLRx6408JX8qtXhIh+3S0f3tG44bYE lB76OX4HPXo= =nhI8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From fil at rezo.net Fri Dec 15 15:01:25 2006 From: fil at rezo.net (Fil) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:01:25 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] MySQLMemberships.py Message-ID: <20061215140120.GP9650@rezo.net> Hello, I have upgraded the MysqlMemberships.py member adaptor, so that it uses only one connection for all lists, and not one connection per list (as it did before). Everything works fine (only one day of operation though), except when the mysql link is broken (I stopped mysqld to check that). Then I get this error: self._prodServerConnection() File "/var/local/mailman/Mailman/MysqlMemberships.py", line 132, in _prodServerConnection mm_cfg.connexion.close() _mysql_exceptions . ProgrammingError : closing a closed connection I guess I could use help from someone who knows more python than me. If you want to have a look at the code it's here: http://trac.rezo.net/trac/rezo/browser/Mailman/MySQLMemberAdaptor/MysqlMemberships.py -- Fil From fil at rezo.net Sat Dec 16 00:12:52 2006 From: fil at rezo.net (Fil) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:12:52 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] MySQLMemberships.py In-Reply-To: <20061215140120.GP9650@rezo.net> References: <20061215140120.GP9650@rezo.net> Message-ID: <20061215231251.GL9650@rezo.net> I have upgraded MysqlMemberships.py member adaptor once again, this time solving (I think) the problem of disconnection/reconnection when the link to the SQL server has died. In my tests it works fine (reconnects) when I kill the link with "mysqladmin kill NNN" However I don't know what strategy is good when you need to reconnect and the server is really dead. Here I die (and Mailman shunts the message); but couldn't it try to unshunt when MySQL "wakes up"? As usual if you want to have a look at the code it's here: http://trac.rezo.net/trac/rezo/browser/Mailman/MySQLMemberAdaptor/MysqlMemberships.py -- Fil From clement.hermann at businessdecision.com Mon Dec 18 16:28:01 2006 From: clement.hermann at businessdecision.com (Clement Hermann) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:28:01 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Multiple instances of mailman : some thoughts for improving the current status. Message-ID: <4586B381.7060801@businessdecision.com> Hello, I need multiple instances of mailman for separate name space between virtual domains, as I'm not willing to patch if I can avoid it (I'd rather migrate to a virtual-hosting capable mailman once it goes out). However, installing multiple mailman instances from source with a different $PREFIX could make things difficult in a production environment, especially regarding security updates. In a perfect world (from the sysadmin point of vue) the prefix should be configurable through an environment variable or a configuration file (but the latter would be more complicated, as you would have to be able to choose the mm_cfg.py from the command line). That way, it would be trivial to set up several instances by copiying data files and linking binaries / script. a simple wrapper (shell, or C, or whatever) could then call the right binaries from the current path or an additional parameter. A security upgrade would then be just a matter of reinstalling the files in the master installation I'm far from being a python coder (I know perl and shell a lot better), but I can't see from the code where that could cause a problem. The C CGI won't represent a problem either, just need to use the environment with perhaps a default value for the $prefix value instead of hard-coding it at compilation time. Is there anything preventing us to modify the code in such a way ? Am I missing something obvious, or underestimating the difficulties ? Please tell me what you think. Cheers, -- Cl?ment Hermann (nodens) From poelzi at poelzi.org Fri Dec 22 18:19:19 2006 From: poelzi at poelzi.org (Daniel Poelzleithner) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:19:19 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] fixing news threading bug Message-ID: <458C1397.7060900@poelzi.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, regarding: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=1256272&group_id=103&atid=100103 What do the main mailman devs think about it ? I would write a patch, is it ok to use sqlite to store the table, since its already part of python2.5 and usually installed everywhere ? kindly regards Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: GnuPT 2.7.2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFjBOXy/mkIQp7AD0RAlDlAKCtXO79UEM4yPGPFrYlr5Fn70hQoACghCXa c8IjXGi0oh6uh8Fx0Dg0i2A= =JuEA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From barry at python.org Fri Dec 29 23:17:56 2006 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:17:56 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Pickles begone Message-ID: <91357100-517E-4F3D-9702-D5E9E95BB676@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm about to merge my SQLAlchemy branch to the trunk. I'm happy enough with where this is going to commit to this approach going forward. I wrote about it a bit in a news article on wiki.list.org and I'll try to elaborate there when things settle down. This stuff could definitely use more testing, but the web u/i and sending mail through the system work for me. If you're using the trunk regularly now, you will notice that there's no migration path yet for moving from the pickle-based storage to SQLAlchemy based storage. This is what the import/export scripts are for. You notice though that only bin/export is written yet. bin/import is tops on my list after the merge. I've also committed bin/export.py to the Mailman 2.1 branch. This will be how you migrate MM2.1 lists to the MM trunk. Our next release of MM2.1 will have this, so my plan for migration will be to install the latest 2.1.x (x > 9), run bin/export.py, then feed the resulting XML to the trunk's bin/import. For now, you can start from scratch with bin/newlist or creating a list through the web. From there the trunk should look and act just like you're used to. As always, let us know what you find. I'm eager to fix problems quickly. Please don't use the SF bug tracker for problems you encounter on the trunk. It would also be interesting to know if you try a SQLAlchemy backend other than SQLite. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBRZWUFHEjvBPtnXfVAQIEJwP/WkB2jY3Ww2YR96oDejC/ZSSWwbct8ENb k/kpcoYm9V2ra36WUiHt0pfFLyhMk0pRXtBh/oScooLiZJu9AA2wnD046I5AJZLt 5DS+YJI2B5c4pn4pO80w5JeAUgQfiYIhafs6u/Oy3fDzag6Rp698Dt/Bv62V8Mly hteE9Iu8xcs= =plDI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jwblist3 at olympus.net Fri Dec 29 23:30:12 2006 From: jwblist3 at olympus.net (John W. Baxter) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:30:12 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Pickles begone In-Reply-To: <91357100-517E-4F3D-9702-D5E9E95BB676@python.org> Message-ID: On 12/29/06 2:17 PM, "Barry Warsaw" wrote: > I'm about to merge my SQLAlchemy branch to the trunk. I'm happy > enough with where this is going to commit to this approach going > forward. [Loud cheering from the sidelines!!] (An upcoming rewrite of our mail handling system will also be eliminating (at least most) pickles. At present, these are cleverly stored in MySQL, and getting the data out in ad hoc queries is remarkably difficult.) --John