[Mailman-Users] Mailman and Gmane ?

[John Fitzsimons]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:18:10 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote:
 
>John Fitzsimons wrote:

Hi Mark,

>>On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:28:57 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>>Could you please clarify those words ? " *If* Gmane is in the Sender
>>header". The sender header appears to be the list address.

>This is all irrelevant. Since the posts from Gmane are arriving via the
>NNTP gateway, no membership tests whatsoever are applied to the post -
>no list member, no moderation, no *_these_nonmembers.

Okay, so to "authenticate" a small number of people eg. dozens what
should I have ? 

(1) The Gmane subscription ? 
(2) The gateway ? 
(3) Both ?

Just tell me what you think is best. You are the expert here. Not me.
I am the dummy.

I very much appreciate your help. At the end of the day however I want
to impliment a system that actually "works" !

>>There are so many headers I am totally confused as to which ones
>>can/should be filtered on and which ones shouldn't be.

>You can use header_filter_rules to hold a post from the news gateway.
>You can filter on any header you want, but this won't work well unless
>you have fery few authorized posters.

Well, is there a practical limit to the term "very few" ? Initially I
hope to increase subscribers to dozens. The number could however 
reach something like a hundred. Would that "break" Mailman ? What
dictates how many are "too many" ?

< snip >

>>As I am an "authorised" poster the sort of filter that would be needed
>>that comes to mind would be something like...

>>DELETE  & ! From: {me at mydomain | member at hisdomain}

>>But I have no idea how that would need to be implimented in Mailman.

>Like the following in Privacy options... -> Spam filters ->
>header_filter_rules

>First rule:
>  regexp: ^from:.*[ >]me at mydomain([> ]|$)
>  action: Accept

>(either additional rules or additional regexps in the First rule for
>additional posters)

Ah ! I like that. Do I insert the above EXACTLY as you have suggested
?

regexp: ^from:.*[ >]me at mydomain([> ]|$)
action: Accept

I need both the "regexp" AND "action" items ?

Also, at what approximate number would you recommend expanding the
first filter rule in preference to adding new ones ? I am guessing
that there may be some sort of a "limit" set as to how many characters
in total can be in that box ?

>Last rule
>  regexp: ^X-Injected-Via-Gmane:
>  action: Discard

Okay.

< snip >

>They could post to Gmane via NNTP with Gmane sending to your list via
>email.

Okay, so if I get rid of the gateway settings the above filters will
still work ?


>>> If so, it's little help, because
>>>the headers should be quite different from a mailed post.)

>>Okay, see the added info I provided above.

>Which contrary to your "Here are some of the headers as they appear
>when they arrive at the mailing list." assertion appear to be the
>headers from a post delivered from Mailman, not the headers of the
>post as it arrived to Mailman.

Good point. Sorry. If I could show you the raw header info then I
would.

>Note that Mailman has rewritten the Sender: and envelope sender
>(reflected as Return-Path:) and added Errors-To: and maybe Reply-To:


>[...]
>>>If not, and Gmane *isn't* in one of From, Sender, or envelope sender,
>>>then I don't understand how posts from unsubscribed addresses via
>>>Gmane are getting through, since IIRC you said earlier you have
>>>'generic_nonmember_action' set to 'Hold'.  Right?

>>Sorry, your terminology has confused me here. What do you mean by
>>'generic_nonmember_action' set to 'Hold'.  ?

>He means the setting near the bottom of the list admin Privacy
>options... -> Sender filters page.

Ah ! Sorry. I am still very much a "newbie" here. I have 

By default, should new list member postings be moderated?  set to "No"

and

Action to take when a moderated member posts to the list.  set to
"Hold".

I am not sure if I need to change either/both of those settings to
make sure the filtering you recommend works.

>>I have setup the list as "Require approval". Is that what you mean ?

>That is presumably Privacy options... -> Subscription rules ->
>subscribe_policy - not the same thing at all.

Okay, thanks. I will not change that then.

Regards, John.