From amk at amk.ca  Tue Oct  7 16:47:42 2008
From: amk at amk.ca (A.M. Kuchling)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:47:42 -0400
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Looking for Help
In-Reply-To: <83EAD167-BFC0-4925-B1E3-A813996CFAEF@tmfconsulting.net>
References: <83EAD167-BFC0-4925-B1E3-A813996CFAEF@tmfconsulting.net>
Message-ID: <20081007144742.GA8376@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:14:56AM -0400, Thomas M Foley wrote:
> response, http://www.verticalresponse.com.  They would like some 
> assistance in developing some back end tools and interface to do tracking 
> on their mailings.

I have a Mailman branch at
https://code.launchpad.net/~amk/mailman/bounce-analysis that allows
more detailed tracking of which messages bounce and which are
accepted.  The patch makes Mailman record the unique Message-ID for
each message in various internal log files, and adds a script that
analyzes the resulting log files.  This makes it possible to determine
that a given message was sent to X addresses, Y of which bounced.

I work for www.matrixgroup.net, which funded the above branch, so I
can't do any work directly for you due to a non-compete agreement.  If
you're interested in hiring Matrix to do some work for you, I can put
you in touch with our new-biz.  You're certainly free to incorporate
the branch above into your own work, and I hope to see it included in
Mailman 2.2 or some future version.

--amk

From shiva at sewingwitch.com  Fri Oct 10 02:05:52 2008
From: shiva at sewingwitch.com (Kenneth Porter)
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:05:52 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Headers in administrative messages
Message-ID: <6CDBD5EF389A5629C55B800A@[10.0.0.14]>

It might be nice to get the List-id header in messages to the 
administrator. I have a spam white-listing rule for list messages and I'm 
finding some of my auto-discard notifications are ending up in my spam 
folder instead of my administrator folder because they lack the list id 
pattern I use to white list.

It might also be nice to have some kind of digital signature header that 
signs another dynamic header, such that an admin or regular list recipient 
can check the signature to verify that it's really from the list.

From mark at msapiro.net  Fri Oct 10 22:31:40 2008
From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:31:40 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Headers in administrative messages
In-Reply-To: <6CDBD5EF389A5629C55B800A@[10.0.0.14]>
Message-ID: <PC1870200810101331400890c65d7162@msapiro>

Kenneth Porter wrote:

>It might be nice to get the List-id header in messages to the 
>administrator. I have a spam white-listing rule for list messages and I'm 
>finding some of my auto-discard notifications are ending up in my spam 
>folder instead of my administrator folder because they lack the list id 
>pattern I use to white list.


The List-Id: header should be there. The other List-* headers are not
included, but List-Id: is.

What specific message is missing this header?

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


From shiva at sewingwitch.com  Sat Oct 11 01:31:51 2008
From: shiva at sewingwitch.com (Kenneth Porter)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:31:51 -0700
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Headers in administrative messages
In-Reply-To: <PC1870200810101331400890c65d7162@msapiro>
References: <PC1870200810101331400890c65d7162@msapiro>
Message-ID: <2863BEE3CB84B017D85EAA41@[10.0.0.14]>

--On Friday, October 10, 2008 1:31 PM -0700 Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> 
wrote:

> Kenneth Porter wrote:
>
>> It might be nice to get the List-id header in messages to the
>> administrator. I have a spam white-listing rule for list messages and
>> I'm  finding some of my auto-discard notifications are ending up in my
>> spam  folder instead of my administrator folder because they lack the
>> list id  pattern I use to white list.
>
>
> The List-Id: header should be there. The other List-* headers are not
> included, but List-Id: is.
>
> What specific message is missing this header?

Ah, I misdiagnosed it. The message, an auto-discard notification, indeed 
had the list headers, but the message remained so spammy (even after -10 
for the list-id and -5 for my auto-white-list), that it still exceeded 5 
points and got wrapped in a SpamAssassin report that doesn't propagate the 
list headers into the wrapping message.

Sorry about the noise.

From rommel at suse.de  Fri Oct 31 16:16:46 2008
From: rommel at suse.de (Heiko Rommel)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:16:46 +0100
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman 2.1.x +  Python 2.6 ?
Message-ID: <490B215E.5060305@suse.de>


Hi,

as there is no released version in the 2.2 and 3.0 trees version 2.1.11
appears to me the best choice for production environments.

Unfortunately, it does not run with Python 2.6 for several reasons -
which brings the project in a difficult situation in medium-term.
I prepared a fix for the md5/sha deprecation - but only to run into a
the email.message issue (mentioned in another thread).

How much pain can I expect on the path to make it work with Python 2.6 ?
I am pretty sure that Barry or Mark already investigated to some extend.
Please share insight :)

-- 
Heiko Rommel                                rommel at suse.de
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg
T: +49 (0) 911 74053 0           F:  +49 (0) 911 741 77 55

From barry at list.org  Fri Oct 31 16:50:18 2008
From: barry at list.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:50:18 +0000
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman 2.1.x +  Python 2.6 ?
In-Reply-To: <490B215E.5060305@suse.de>
References: <490B215E.5060305@suse.de>
Message-ID: <20081031155018.349f8920@resist.wooz.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Oct 31, 2008, at 04:16 PM, Heiko Rommel wrote:

>as there is no released version in the 2.2 and 3.0 trees version 2.1.11
>appears to me the best choice for production environments.
>
>Unfortunately, it does not run with Python 2.6 for several reasons -
>which brings the project in a difficult situation in medium-term.
>I prepared a fix for the md5/sha deprecation - but only to run into a
>the email.message issue (mentioned in another thread).
>
>How much pain can I expect on the path to make it work with Python 2.6 ?
>I am pretty sure that Barry or Mark already investigated to some extend.
>Please share insight :)

I have an uncommitted change for the email problem, which I'll get in the tree
when I return from my work conference (early next week), unless Mark beats me to it :).

- -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkLKToACgkQ2YZpQepbvXGa7ACgriIpJuwoRaUoo4Yzr6bdgIai
NswAnRGJ1m+2iZY8MjXXKsD/9j50X4Co
=+Iyr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From barry at list.org  Fri Oct 31 16:52:06 2008
From: barry at list.org (Barry Warsaw)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:52:06 +0000
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] Mailman 2.1.x +  Python 2.6 ?
In-Reply-To: <490B215E.5060305@suse.de>
References: <490B215E.5060305@suse.de>
Message-ID: <20081031155206.3584dc84@resist.wooz.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Oct 31, 2008, at 04:16 PM, Heiko Rommel wrote:

>Unfortunately, it does not run with Python 2.6 for several reasons -
>which brings the project in a difficult situation in medium-term.
>I prepared a fix for the md5/sha deprecation - but only to run into a
>the email.message issue (mentioned in another thread).

Oh yeah.  If you have a branch w/ the md5/sha fix, please push it to launchpad
and post the url here.  I'll review it and merge it at the same time.

- -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkLKaYACgkQ2YZpQepbvXFfrgCePYFtBHOjKyyCZAIdn2DaDU7B
D8AAn1pggeRhqhB82UOR4itDAScTcZnz
=Sd5M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----