From jim at jim-ratliff.name Tue Jan 2 02:03:44 2018 From: jim at jim-ratliff.name (Jim Ratliff) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 23:03:44 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] "[Errno 30] Read-only file system" error when accessing Mailman admin pages from outside of cPanel Message-ID: <6134C268-0AE1-4016-AF71-95812E26F4F6@jim-ratliff.name> When someone attempts to subscribe to the Mailman list at the public-information page, e.g., myserver.org/mailman/subscribe/listname 1) the request for subscription DOES go through (shows up on pending subscription requests), BUT 2) the user is shown a page that says "Bug in Mailman version 2.1.23, We're sorry, we hit a bug! Please inform the webmaster for this site of this problem. Printing of traceback and other system information has been explicitly inhibited, but the webmaster can find this information in the Mailman error logs.? When I look in the error log, the most-relevant entry seems to be: OSError: [Errno 30] Read-only file system: '/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/archives/public/REDACTED_LISTNAME? In case it?s helpful, here?s the traceback: > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/scripts/driver", line 117, in run_main > main() > File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/subscribe.py", line 110, in main > mlist.Save() > File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 607, in Save > self.CheckHTMLArchiveDir() > File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/Archiver.py", line 236, in CheckHTMLArchiveDir > breaklink(pubdir) > File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/Archiver.py", line 56, in breaklink > os.unlink(link) I ran ?check_perms? and the only response was: > Warning: Private archive directory is other-executable (o+x). > This could allow other users on your system to read private archives. > If you're on a shared multiuser system, you should consult the > installation manual on how to fix this. which doesn?t seem like an explanation for my problem. In the subject line, I say I have this problem "when accessing Mailman admin pages from outside of cPanel.? What I mean is that I don?t get this error if I go through cPanel ? Mailing Lists and access the admin pages through those links. Any ideas on what to do or check? Thanks! Jim From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 2 14:31:18 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 11:31:18 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] "[Errno 30] Read-only file system" error when accessing Mailman admin pages from outside of cPanel In-Reply-To: <6134C268-0AE1-4016-AF71-95812E26F4F6@jim-ratliff.name> References: <6134C268-0AE1-4016-AF71-95812E26F4F6@jim-ratliff.name> Message-ID: <4fc25702-8bbe-7d4e-cee8-d708b60f3ce4@msapiro.net> On 01/01/2018 11:03 PM, Jim Ratliff wrote: > > When I look in the error log, the most-relevant entry seems to be: > > OSError: [Errno 30] Read-only file system: '/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/archives/public/REDACTED_LISTNAME? > > In case it?s helpful, here?s the traceback: > >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/scripts/driver", line 117, in run_main >> main() >> File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/subscribe.py", line 110, in main >> mlist.Save() >> File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 607, in Save >> self.CheckHTMLArchiveDir() >> File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/Archiver.py", line 236, in CheckHTMLArchiveDir >> breaklink(pubdir) >> File "/usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/Mailman/Archiver/Archiver.py", line 56, in breaklink >> os.unlink(link) The issue is that every time a list configuration is saved, part of that process checks whether the list's archives are public or private and if public it ensures that there is a symlink from archives/public/listname to archives/private/listname (which is how public archives are accessed) and if private it attempts to remove such a symlink. > In the subject line, I say I have this problem "when accessing Mailman admin pages from outside of cPanel.? What I mean is that I don?t get this error if I go through cPanel ? Mailing Lists and access the admin pages through those links. The underlying issue is for the process attempting the unlinking, the file system containing /usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/archives/public is mounted read-only. Presumably this is not the case for the cPanel access you describe nor for Mailman's normal access to the list's config, or you would be hitting this error continuously. Is the web server running on a separate host and accessing Mailman via NTFS or similar or perhaps running in a jail that is not allowing write access to /usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/archives/public? -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From chris.puchalski at raytheon.com Tue Jan 2 15:26:28 2018 From: chris.puchalski at raytheon.com (Chris PUCHALSKI) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:26:28 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior Message-ID: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> The privacy settings with concern to the moderation of nonmembers we have been seeing something odd happening. We have nonmembers set to reject on a list but it appears messages still get through to the list recipients. But the sender also get the rejection notification. That is both confirmed in the vette logs as well as in actual practice with test emails. Where does one begin to look for a reason why this is happening? No major changes have been made to the system and I have seen it happen once before but I thought it was a freak occurrence then because I have heard zero complaints since then. Chris P. From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 2 17:54:44 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:54:44 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior In-Reply-To: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> References: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> Message-ID: <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> On 01/02/2018 12:26 PM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote: > The privacy settings with concern to the moderation of nonmembers we have been seeing something odd happening. We have nonmembers set to reject on a list but it appears messages still get through to the list recipients. But the sender also get the rejection notification. That is both confirmed in the vette logs as well as in actual practice with test emails. Does this occur with all non-member posts or just occasionally? Do all list members receive the message? Is it in the archives? If your list supports digests is the message added to the lists/LISTNAME/digest.mbox file and sent in the digest? Is the message logged in the 'post' log? If so, is the Message-ID: in the post log the same as the one in the vette log? -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Tue Jan 2 19:48:44 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 18:48:44 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mm_cfg Message-ID: Hi all, I'd like to move a mailman install to a failover setup with drbd for shared storage. The way it works is active host mounts /dev/drbd filesystem and sets up syminks e.g. /var/spool/mailman -> /drbd/var/spool/mailman /etc/mailman -> /drbd/etc/mailman My questions are a) what to do /etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py that on my systems is a symlink to /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py and b) are there any other special ones like this hiding in there? With mm_cfg, I guess I'll put it on /drbd and have the script link /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py to /drbd/someplace/mm_cfg.py -- does that sound workable? Any other gotchas? (The setup is centos 6 with mailman 2.1.12 with whatever patches RedHat added without changing the version number.) TIA -- 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: From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 2 23:03:34 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:03:34 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mm_cfg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/02/2018 04:48 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > > My questions are a) what to do /etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py that on my systems > is a symlink to /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py and b) are there any > other special ones like this hiding in there? Please see You may also find helpful. Basically, your question relates to the RHEL Mailman package and the second link above is all we know about that. > With mm_cfg, I guess I'll put it on /drbd and have the script link > /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py to /drbd/someplace/mm_cfg.py -- does > that sound workable? Yes. > Any other gotchas? Aside from the fact that the package is 13 releases out of date (well, not completely because I think they slipped in some of the DMARC mitigation stuff without bumping the version ...), I *think* that might be it, but I can't promise. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From chris.puchalski at raytheon.com Wed Jan 3 09:57:47 2018 From: chris.puchalski at raytheon.com (Chris PUCHALSKI) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:57:47 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior In-Reply-To: <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> References: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> Message-ID: It seems to happen in every case across a few lists tested. In this particular list I am testing with there is just a single member, but I can add more to prove it impacts all if needed. We don't use archives, I was forced to break that feature some time back. Digests also not used. Basically we made an attempt to not retain any data after a message is delivered to members. There is a reference to the message in post log and it does have the same message ID. Chris P -----Original Message----- From: Mailman-Users [mailto:mailman-users-bounces+chris.puchalski=raytheon.com at python.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sapiro Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 3:55 PM To: mailman-users at python.org Subject: [External] Re: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior On 01/02/2018 12:26 PM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote: > The privacy settings with concern to the moderation of nonmembers we have been seeing something odd happening. We have nonmembers set to reject on a list but it appears messages still get through to the list recipients. But the sender also get the rejection notification. That is both confirmed in the vette logs as well as in actual practice with test emails. Does this occur with all non-member posts or just occasionally? Do all list members receive the message? Is it in the archives? If your list supports digests is the message added to the lists/LISTNAME/digest.mbox file and sent in the digest? Is the message logged in the 'post' log? If so, is the Message-ID: in the post log the same as the one in the vette log? -- Mark Sapiro 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/chris.puchalski%40raytheon.com From mark at msapiro.net Wed Jan 3 12:47:32 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:47:32 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior In-Reply-To: References: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <6964527d-6333-316a-62ab-171f3e940ff9@msapiro.net> On 01/03/2018 06:57 AM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote: > It seems to happen in every case across a few lists tested. OK. > In this particular list I am testing with there is just a single member, but I can add more to prove it impacts all if needed. We don't use archives, I was forced to break that feature some time back. Digests also not used. Basically we made an attempt to not retain any data after a message is delivered to members. One member should be enough. > There is a reference to the message in post log and it does have the same message ID. OK. My understanding is a non-member posts to the list. The non-member gets a rejection notice. The vette log has an entry like "Message rejected, msgid: ...". The message is also sent to the list member(s). The post log has an entry like "post to from
, size=..., message-id=, success". is the list in question;
is the non-member address and the in the vette log and post log are the same. Is all this correct? What Mailman version is this? If not installed from source, what package? Any local modifications? -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Wed Jan 3 13:29:48 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:29:48 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mm_cfg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/02/2018 10:03 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 01/02/2018 04:48 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > Basically, your question relates to the RHEL Mailman package and the > second link above is all we know about that. Fair enough but I should think expecting site-specific settings to live under /etc is no longer distro-specific and that mm_cfg.py violates the principle of least surprise for any distro since fsstnd. The other option is to use any of the file sync mechanisms to keep identical copies on mm_cfg.py on the two nodes. I need to patch both for SpamAssassin anyway and since mm_cfg doesn't change after initial edits, maybe I'll just do that instead of symlinks to symlinks to symlinks... Thanks anyway, -- 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: From chris.puchalski at raytheon.com Thu Jan 4 11:34:50 2018 From: chris.puchalski at raytheon.com (Chris PUCHALSKI) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:34:50 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior In-Reply-To: <6964527d-6333-316a-62ab-171f3e940ff9@msapiro.net> References: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> <6964527d-6333-316a-62ab-171f3e940ff9@msapiro.net> Message-ID: It is a Redhat package (mailman-2.1.12-25.el6.x86_64) so not from source. I have the version locked because I found updates over wrote the customizations made to the look/feel. Most of the modifications are related to hiding options from users (to protect themselves) and cosmetic (so it fits company look/feel). It was working up to some point a few months ago, I know because I was doing some testing to help a list owner make a private list. I have the version locked because I found updates over wrote the customizations made to the look/feel. Christopher Puchalski Corporate IT Security Chris.Puchalski at raytheon.com -----Original Message----- From: Mailman-Users [mailto:mailman-users-bounces+chris.puchalski=raytheon.com at python.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sapiro Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 10:48 AM To: mailman-users at python.org Subject: [External] Re: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior On 01/03/2018 06:57 AM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote: > It seems to happen in every case across a few lists tested. OK. > In this particular list I am testing with there is just a single member, but I can add more to prove it impacts all if needed. We don't use archives, I was forced to break that feature some time back. Digests also not used. Basically we made an attempt to not retain any data after a message is delivered to members. One member should be enough. > There is a reference to the message in post log and it does have the same message ID. OK. My understanding is a non-member posts to the list. The non-member gets a rejection notice. The vette log has an entry like "Message rejected, msgid: ...". The message is also sent to the list member(s). The post log has an entry like "post to from
, size=..., message-id=, success". is the list in question;
is the non-member address and the in the vette log and post log are the same. Is all this correct? What Mailman version is this? If not installed from source, what package? Any local modifications? -- Mark Sapiro 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/chris.puchalski%40raytheon.com From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Thu Jan 4 12:06:24 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 02:06:24 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mm_cfg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23118.24336.179322.221976@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Dimitri Maziuk writes: > Fair enough but I should think expecting site-specific settings to > live under /etc is no longer distro-specific and that mm_cfg.py > violates the principle of least surprise for any distro since > fsstnd. Fair enough, but the distros already have scripts that handle this, which they would have to change. "Don't fix what ain't already broke" applies. More important, many users upgrade from source, often via local packages. Each distro does things differently. As I understand your post, RH/Centos leaves mm_cfg.py in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman and puts a link in /etc. But Debian moves the actual file to /etc/mailman, and puts a link in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman. Almost surely people are going to end up with their custom configs overwritten with the default when they upgrade. It's just not worth it for an application that's basically EOL, just to make one user with an exceptional environment happier. Regards, From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Thu Jan 4 12:30:49 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:30:49 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mm_cfg In-Reply-To: <23118.24336.179322.221976@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <23118.24336.179322.221976@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: On 2018-01-04 11:06, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > As I understand your > post, RH/Centos leaves mm_cfg.py in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman and puts > a link in /etc. But Debian moves the actual file to /etc/mailman, and > puts a link in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman. Almost surely people are > going to end up with their custom configs overwritten with the default > when they upgrade. Debian's way is better for this use case because it's /etc/mailman that moves between the nodes. Anyway, on 2nd thought I'll just modify it on both nodes: it's not like it gets any changes after the initial hostname and spamassassin additions. > It's just not worth it for an application that's basically EOL, just > to make one user with an exceptional environment happier. No, of course not. Dima From fmouse at fmp.com Thu Jan 4 14:01:33 2018 From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 13:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mm_cfg In-Reply-To: References: <23118.24336.179322.221976@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1515092493.13454.32.camel@fmp.com> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 11:30 -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 2018-01-04 11:06, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > > > > As I understand your > > post, RH/Centos leaves mm_cfg.py in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman and puts > > a link in /etc.??But Debian moves the actual file to /etc/mailman, and > > puts a link in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman.??Almost surely people are > > going to end up with their custom configs overwritten with the default > > when they upgrade. > Debian's way is better for this use case because it's /etc/mailman that? > moves between the nodes. Anyway, on 2nd thought I'll just modify it on? > both nodes: it's not like it gets any changes after the initial hostname? > and spamassassin additions. > > > > > It's just not worth it for an application that's basically EOL, just > > to make one user with an exceptional environment happier. > No, of course not. An historical note and a feature request here, which may be relevant. ? The document at is from 2004 but outlines the initial thinking by folks a Red Hat trying to bring Mailman in line with the Linux FHS. This probably relates to distributions such as CentOS as well, which are RHEL- derived. Also, since group assignments, file locations, etc. are still somewhat distribution-specific for Mailman, it would be helpful if the standard build would include an executable binary, e.g. "mailman-config", which would simply spit back the compiled-in prefix, exec-prefix, bindir, sbindir, etc., along with the full configure argument string as it appeared at build time. The latter wouldn't take care of per-distribution symlinking issues, but it would be helpful to those of us who always build Mailman from source, especially if we're trying to comply with our distribution's FHS. Yes, I can look at config.log in the source to find out how I successfully built MM last time but it would be great if this information could be encapsulated into a binary which was always somewhere such as the ~mailman/bin directory and was there even if the build source wasn't included in the distribution package. I use the Courier mail suite for mail handling and every build and every distribution's package contains "courier-config" which tells precisely how the configure-cow ate the cabbages at build-time. -- Lindsay Haisley | "The first casualty when FMP Computer Services | war comes is truth." 512-259-1190 | http://www.fmp.com | -- Hiram W Johnson From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Thu Jan 4 14:22:50 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:22:50 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mm_cfg In-Reply-To: <1515092493.13454.32.camel@fmp.com> References: <23118.24336.179322.221976@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <1515092493.13454.32.camel@fmp.com> Message-ID: On 01/04/2018 01:01 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote: > Also, since group assignments, file locations, etc. are still somewhat > distribution-specific for Mailman, it would be helpful if the standard > build would include an executable binary, e.g. "mailman-config", which > would simply spit back the compiled-in prefix, exec-prefix, bindir, > sbindir, etc., along with the full configure argument string as it > appeared at build time. It probably would be, but OTOH for my next upgrade I might just install docker on all my servers and make a container with 2.1.latest, built exactly like its authors intended. -- 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: From mark at msapiro.net Thu Jan 4 15:23:41 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:23:41 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior In-Reply-To: References: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> <6964527d-6333-316a-62ab-171f3e940ff9@msapiro.net> Message-ID: On 01/04/2018 08:34 AM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote: > It is a Redhat package (mailman-2.1.12-25.el6.x86_64) so not from source. I have the version locked because I found updates over wrote the customizations made to the look/feel. Most of the modifications are related to hiding options from users (to protect themselves) and cosmetic (so it fits company look/feel). It was working up to some point a few months ago, I know because I was doing some testing to help a list owner make a private list. I have the version locked because I found updates over wrote the customizations made to the look/feel. So I assume from the fact that you are not contradicting any of this: > OK. My understanding is a non-member posts to the list. The non-member gets a rejection notice. The vette log has an entry like "Message rejected, msgid: ...". The message is also sent to the list member(s). The post log has an entry like "post to from
, size=..., message-id=, success". > > is the list in question;
is the non-member address and the in the vette log and post log are the same. > > Is all this correct? that my understanding is correct. In that case, I think the issue must be due to your local changes. I can't say any more without seeing your code. Most likely, the issue is in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/Moderate.py. I would like to see a copy of that and also the setting for GLOBAL_PIPELINE in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Defaults.py and anything that references GLOBAL_PIPELINE in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py (aka /etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py). Also, I'd like to see the entire "except Errors.RejectMessage" clause in the _dopipeline method of the IncomingRunner class in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Queue/IncomingRunner.py. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From mrbrklyn at panix.com Fri Jan 5 09:59:12 2018 From: mrbrklyn at panix.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:59:12 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table Message-ID: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> I have a custom archive system that I have used for decades and I lost the ability to send mail through the mailing list to its user account. Jan 05 01:13:13 2018 (3042) delivery to archive at xxx.com failed the code 550: 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table I am using postfix I have delivery when I use mutt to just send email to the account. I tried to add this to postfix main.cf but no change in behavior # local_recipient_maps settings are OK. unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550 local_recipient_maps = unix:passwd.byname $alias_maps <<== the user is sitting in /etc/passwd www2:/var/lib/mailman/logs # grep archive /etc/passwd archive:x:1001:100::/home/archive:/bin/bash dns record looks good www2:/var/lib/mailman/logs # dig mx xxx.com ; <<>> DiG 9.9.2 <<>> mx xxx.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 26171 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 3 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xxx.com. IN MX ;; ANSWER SECTION: xxx.com. 86400 IN MX 10 www2.xxx.com. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: xxx.com. 86400 IN NS www2.xxx.com. xxx.com. 86400 IN NS ns1.linuxmafia.com. xxx.com. 86400 IN NS www3.xxx.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: www2.xxx.com. 86400 IN A 96.57.23.82 www3.xxx.com. 86400 IN A 96.57.23.83 ;; Query time: 12 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Fri Jan 5 09:13:42 2018 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 156 -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013 -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013 From mrbrklyn at panix.com Fri Jan 5 12:17:51 2018 From: mrbrklyn at panix.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:17:51 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table In-Reply-To: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> References: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> Message-ID: On 01/05/2018 09:59 AM, Ruben Safir wrote: > I have a custom archive system that I have used for decades and I lost > the ability to send mail through the mailing list to its user account. > > Jan 05 01:13:13 2018 (3042) delivery to archive at xxx.com failed the code > 550: 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown > in local recipient table > > I am using postfix > > I have delivery when I use mutt to just send email to the account. > > I tried to add this to postfix main.cf but no change in behavior > > # local_recipient_maps settings are OK. > unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550 > local_recipient_maps = unix:passwd.byname $alias_maps <<== > > the user is sitting in /etc/passwd > > www2:/var/lib/mailman/logs # grep archive /etc/passwd > archive:x:1001:100::/home/archive:/bin/bash > > dns record looks good > www2:/var/lib/mailman/logs # dig mx xxx.com > > ; <<>> DiG 9.9.2 <<>> mx xxx.com > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 26171 > ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 3 > > ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: > ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;xxx.com. IN MX > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > xxx.com. 86400 IN MX 10 www2.xxx.com. > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > xxx.com. 86400 IN NS www2.xxx.com. > xxx.com. 86400 IN NS ns1.linuxmafia.com. > xxx.com. 86400 IN NS www3.xxx.com. > > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: > www2.xxx.com. 86400 IN A 96.57.23.82 > www3.xxx.com. 86400 IN A 96.57.23.83 > > ;; Query time: 12 msec > ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) > ;; WHEN: Fri Jan 5 09:13:42 2018 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 156 > > It seems to be reaching across to another machine in order to get smtp information, on a postfix installation on that remote machine. They used to be on the same machine, webserver and mail server, but I split them up. When I turned off postfix on the remote machine, which is the mail server, I now get this error Jan 05 11:40:24 2018 (10329) delivery to archive at xxx.com failed with code -1: [Errno 111] Connection refused But I don't see why it does this. It doesn't seem to be dns confusion because that works correctly for the mx records. It seems to be confusion restricted to mailman Ruben -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013 From mrbrklyn at panix.com Fri Jan 5 12:49:07 2018 From: mrbrklyn at panix.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:49:07 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table In-Reply-To: References: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> Message-ID: <2cca784f-7d55-9196-a986-c2573c5d36e6@panix.com> On 01/05/2018 12:17 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: > But I don't see why it does this. It doesn't seem to be dns confusion > because that works correctly for the mx records. It seems to be > confusion restricted to mailman OK - I found the problem SMTPHost should be documented to need the FQDN of the host. I was using the dns mx record mydomain.com, which points to the mail server that was different from the ordinary dns record for mydomain.com which points to the web server. SMTPHost seems to do a non-mx record lookup for the value ... which is a little strange. Ruben -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013 From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Fri Jan 5 13:41:10 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:41:10 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table In-Reply-To: <2cca784f-7d55-9196-a986-c2573c5d36e6@panix.com> References: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> <2cca784f-7d55-9196-a986-c2573c5d36e6@panix.com> Message-ID: <5c68da38-e222-7805-48b8-a1735e6f5d2f@bmrb.wisc.edu> On 01/05/2018 11:49 AM, Ruben Safir wrote: > SMTPHost seems to do a non-mx record lookup for the value ... which is a > little strange. When you look up a *host*, you look for A/PTR or CNAME. When you look up an MX, you can look up an MX for a *domain*, *or* you could look up an MX for a *host*. I expect in most cases if you query for MX for SMTP*Host* you'll get nothing -- I wonder how many admins define MXers for each host these days. It shouldn't need FQDN though, it should add search domain suffix(es) from /etc/resolv.conf. -- 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: From chris.puchalski at raytheon.com Fri Jan 5 13:50:56 2018 From: chris.puchalski at raytheon.com (Chris PUCHALSKI) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 18:50:56 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior In-Reply-To: References: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> <6964527d-6333-316a-62ab-171f3e940ff9@msapiro.net> Message-ID: Here is what I can gather, sorry if it looks like dirty in message body... GLOBAL_PIPELINE from Defaults.py (no mention in mm_cfg.py): GLOBAL_PIPELINE = [ # These are the modules that do tasks common to all delivery paths. 'SpamDetect', 'Approve', 'Replybot', 'Moderate', 'Hold', 'MimeDel', 'Scrubber', 'Emergency', 'Tagger', 'CalcRecips', 'AvoidDuplicates', 'Cleanse', 'CleanseDKIM', 'CookHeaders', # And now we send the message to the digest mbox file, and to the arch and # news queues. Runners will provide further processing of the message, # specific to those delivery paths. 'ToDigest', 'ToArchive', 'ToUsenet', # Now we'll do a few extra things specific to the member delivery # (outgoing) path, finally leaving the message in the outgoing queue. 'AfterDelivery', 'Acknowledge', 'WrapMessage', 'ToOutgoing', ] Moderate.py: # Copyright (C) 2001-2008 by the Free Software Foundation, Inc. # # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or # modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License # as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 # of the License, or (at your option) any later version. # # This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, # but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the # GNU General Public License for more details. # # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License # along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software # Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, # USA. """Posting moderation filter. """ import re from email.MIMEMessage import MIMEMessage from email.MIMEText import MIMEText from email.Utils import parseaddr from Mailman import mm_cfg from Mailman import Utils from Mailman import Message from Mailman import Errors from Mailman.i18n import _ from Mailman.Handlers import Hold from Mailman.Logging.Syslog import syslog from Mailman.MailList import MailList ^L class ModeratedMemberPost(Hold.ModeratedPost): # BAW: I wanted to use the reason below to differentiate between this # situation and normal ModeratedPost reasons. Greg Ward and Stonewall # Ballard thought the language was too harsh and mentioned offense taken # by some list members. I'd still like this class's reason to be # different than the base class's reason, but we'll use this until someone # can come up with something more clever but inoffensive. # # reason = _('Posts by member are currently quarantined for moderation') pass ^L def process(mlist, msg, msgdata): if msgdata.get('approved'): return # Before anything else, check DMARC if necessary. msgdata['from_is_list'] = 0 dn, addr = parseaddr(msg.get('from')) if addr and mlist.dmarc_moderation_action > 0: if Utils.IsDMARCProhibited(mlist, addr): # Note that for dmarc_moderation_action, 0 = Accept, # 1 = Munge, 2 = Wrap, 3 = Reject, 4 = Discard if mlist.dmarc_moderation_action == 1: msgdata['from_is_list'] = 1 elif mlist.dmarc_moderation_action == 2: msgdata['from_is_list'] = 2 elif mlist.dmarc_moderation_action == 3: # Reject text = mlist.dmarc_moderation_notice if text: text = Utils.wrap(text) else: text = Utils.wrap(_( """You are not allowed to post to this mailing list From: a domain which publishes a DMARC policy of reject or quarantine, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at %(listowner)s.""")) raise Errors.RejectMessage, text elif mlist.dmarc_moderation_action == 4: raise Errors.DiscardMessage # Then, is the poster a member or not? for sender in msg.get_senders(): if mlist.isMember(sender): break else: sender = None if sender: # If the member's moderation flag is on, then perform the moderation # action. if mlist.getMemberOption(sender, mm_cfg.Moderate): # Note that for member_moderation_action, 0==Hold, 1=Reject, # 2==Discard if mlist.member_moderation_action == 0: # Hold. BAW: WIBNI we could add the member_moderation_notice # to the notice sent back to the sender? msgdata['sender'] = sender Hold.hold_for_approval(mlist, msg, msgdata, ModeratedMemberPost) elif mlist.member_moderation_action == 1: # Reject text = mlist.member_moderation_notice if text: text = Utils.wrap(text) else: # Use the default RejectMessage notice string text = None raise Errors.RejectMessage, text elif mlist.member_moderation_action == 2: # Discard. BAW: Again, it would be nice if we could send a # discard notice to the sender raise Errors.DiscardMessage else: assert 0, 'bad member_moderation_action' # Should we do anything explict to mark this message as getting past # this point? No, because further pipeline handlers will need to do # their own thing. return else: sender = msg.get_sender() # From here on out, we're dealing with non-members. # From here on out, we're dealing with non-members. listname = mlist.internal_name() if matches_p(sender, mlist.accept_these_nonmembers, listname): return if matches_p(sender, mlist.hold_these_nonmembers, listname): Hold.hold_for_approval(mlist, msg, msgdata, Hold.NonMemberPost) # No return if matches_p(sender, mlist.reject_these_nonmembers, listname): do_reject(mlist) # No return if matches_p(sender, mlist.discard_these_nonmembers, listname): do_discard(mlist, msg) # No return # Okay, so the sender wasn't specified explicitly by any of the non-member # moderation configuration variables. Handle by way of generic non-member # action. assert 0 <= mlist.generic_nonmember_action <= 4 if mlist.generic_nonmember_action == 0 or msgdata.get('fromusenet'): # Accept return elif mlist.generic_nonmember_action == 1: Hold.hold_for_approval(mlist, msg, msgdata, Hold.NonMemberPost) elif mlist.generic_nonmember_action == 2: do_reject(mlist) elif mlist.generic_nonmember_action == 3: do_discard(mlist, msg) ^L def matches_p(sender, nonmembers, listname): # First strip out all the regular expressions and listnames plainaddrs = [addr for addr in nonmembers if not (addr.startswith('^') or addr.startswith('@'))] addrdict = Utils.List2Dict(plainaddrs, foldcase=1) if addrdict.has_key(sender): return 1 # Now do the regular expression matches for are in nonmembers: if are.startswith('^'): try: cre = re.compile(are, re.IGNORECASE) except re.error: continue if cre.search(sender): return 1 elif are.startswith('@'): # XXX Needs to be reviewed for list at domain names. try: if are[1:] == listname: # don't reference your own list syslog('error', '*_these_nonmembers in %s references own list', listname) else: mother = MailList(are[1:], lock=0) if mother.isMember(sender): return 1 except Errors.MMUnknownListError: syslog('error', '*_these_nonmembers in %s references non-existent list %s', listname, are[1:]) return 0 ^L def do_reject(mlist): listowner = mlist.GetOwnerEmail() if mlist.nonmember_rejection_notice: raise Errors.RejectMessage, \ Utils.wrap(_(mlist.nonmember_rejection_notice)) else: raise Errors.RejectMessage, Utils.wrap(_("""\ You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at %(listowner)s.""")) ^L def do_discard(mlist, msg): sender = msg.get_sender() # Do we forward auto-discards to the list owners? if mlist.forward_auto_discards: lang = mlist.preferred_language varhelp = '%s/?VARHELP=privacy/sender/discard_these_nonmembers' % \ mlist.GetScriptURL('admin', absolute=1) nmsg = Message.UserNotification(mlist.GetOwnerEmail(), mlist.GetBouncesEmail(), _('Auto-discard notification'), lang=lang) nmsg.set_type('multipart/mixed') text = MIMEText(Utils.wrap(_( 'The attached message has been automatically discarded.')), _charset=Utils.GetCharSet(lang)) nmsg.attach(text) nmsg.attach(MIMEMessage(msg)) nmsg.send(mlist) # Discard this sucker raise Errors.DiscardMessage IncomingRunner.py (portion containing Errors.RejectMessage): except Errors.RejectMessage, e: #mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) #return 0 # Log this. syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s list: %s, handler: %s, reason: %s""", msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'), mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice()) mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) Christopher Puchalski Corporate IT Security Chris.Puchalski at raytheon.com -----Original Message----- From: Mailman-Users [mailto:mailman-users-bounces+chris.puchalski=raytheon.com at python.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sapiro Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 1:24 PM To: mailman-users at python.org Subject: [External] Re: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior On 01/04/2018 08:34 AM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote: > It is a Redhat package (mailman-2.1.12-25.el6.x86_64) so not from source. I have the version locked because I found updates over wrote the customizations made to the look/feel. Most of the modifications are related to hiding options from users (to protect themselves) and cosmetic (so it fits company look/feel). It was working up to some point a few months ago, I know because I was doing some testing to help a list owner make a private list. I have the version locked because I found updates over wrote the customizations made to the look/feel. So I assume from the fact that you are not contradicting any of this: > OK. My understanding is a non-member posts to the list. The non-member gets a rejection notice. The vette log has an entry like "Message rejected, msgid: ...". The message is also sent to the list member(s). The post log has an entry like "post to from
, size=..., message-id=, success". > > is the list in question;
is the non-member address and the in the vette log and post log are the same. > > Is all this correct? that my understanding is correct. In that case, I think the issue must be due to your local changes. I can't say any more without seeing your code. Most likely, the issue is in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/Moderate.py. I would like to see a copy of that and also the setting for GLOBAL_PIPELINE in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Defaults.py and anything that references GLOBAL_PIPELINE in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py (aka /etc/mailman/mm_cfg.py). Also, I'd like to see the entire "except Errors.RejectMessage" clause in the _dopipeline method of the IncomingRunner class in /var/lib/mailman/Mailman/Queue/IncomingRunner.py. -- Mark Sapiro 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/chris.puchalski%40raytheon.com From mark at msapiro.net Fri Jan 5 14:21:50 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 11:21:50 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior In-Reply-To: References: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> <6964527d-6333-316a-62ab-171f3e940ff9@msapiro.net> Message-ID: On 01/05/2018 10:50 AM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote: > > IncomingRunner.py (portion containing Errors.RejectMessage): > > except Errors.RejectMessage, e: > #mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) > #return 0 > # Log this. > syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s > list: %s, handler: %s, reason: %s""", > msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'), > mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice()) > mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) The next line should be return 0 The commented bit #mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) #return 0 Is all there was in the 2.1.12 base. In 2.1 16 it was changed to except Errors.RejectMessage, e: # Log this. syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s list: %s, handler: %s, reason: %s""", msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'), mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice()) mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) return 0 It appears that someone has backported this and possibly dropped the return which may be the issue. I'm not certain. Without the return 0, the try: should fall through to the following return 0 anyway, so it really shouldn't matter. Also, if this is a RedHat change and it is the reason, I'm sure there would have been more complaints by now. I'm pretty much out of ideas at this point. If you want to tar up the entire /var/lib/mailman/Mailman directory and send it to me off list, I'll try to duplicate the issue. Other than that, I don't know what more to try. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From mrbrklyn at panix.com Fri Jan 5 14:34:32 2018 From: mrbrklyn at panix.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:34:32 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table In-Reply-To: <5c68da38-e222-7805-48b8-a1735e6f5d2f@bmrb.wisc.edu> References: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> <2cca784f-7d55-9196-a986-c2573c5d36e6@panix.com> <5c68da38-e222-7805-48b8-a1735e6f5d2f@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: On 01/05/2018 01:41 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 01/05/2018 11:49 AM, Ruben Safir wrote: > >> SMTPHost seems to do a non-mx record lookup for the value ... which is a >> little strange. > When you look up a *host*, you look for A/PTR or CNAME. No, all dns look ups are for hosts. Since this is SMTP, it would be proper to assume it is an mx host > When you look up > an MX, you can look up an MX for a *domain*, *or* you could look up an > MX for a *host*. NO NO NO You are looking up a host. You can do that with a domain name, or a specific host name, but you are looking up for a HOST, or more than a single host with rankings, with a specific ip addresses. [ruben at flatbush ~]$ dig mx gmail.com ; <<>> DiG 9.11.2 <<>> mx gmail.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 45910 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 6 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 ; COOKIE: 55cb7894025bd1ae2219142e5a4fd300fac0b1a609978ecb (good) ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;gmail.com. IN MX ;; ANSWER SECTION: gmail.com. 3487 IN MX 40 alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. gmail.com. 3487 IN MX 30 alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. gmail.com. 3487 IN MX 10 alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. gmail.com. 3487 IN MX 20 alt2.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. gmail.com. 3487 IN MX 5 gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: gmail.com. 161107 IN NS ns1.google.com. gmail.com. 161107 IN NS ns3.google.com. gmail.com. 161107 IN NS ns4.google.com. gmail.com. 161107 IN NS ns2.google.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. 296 IN A 209.85.232.26 ns2.google.com. 161618 IN A 216.239.34.10 ns1.google.com. 161618 IN A 216.239.32.10 ns3.google.com. 161618 IN A 216.239.36.10 ns4.google.com. 161618 IN A 216.239.38.10 ;; Query time: 1 msec ;; SERVER: 10.0.0.37#53(10.0.0.37) ;; WHEN: Fri Jan 05 14:33:20 EST 2018 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 341 [ruben at flatbush ~]$ dig gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com ; <<>> DiG 9.11.2 <<>> gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 3649 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 5 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 ; COOKIE: e107a7eb3dd41c69bad19c635a4fd3209ed6a84ada3378fd (good) ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. 264 IN A 209.85.232.26 >I expect in most cases if you query for MX for > SMTP*Host* you'll get nothing -- I wonder how many admins define MXers > for each host these days. > > It shouldn't need FQDN though, it should add search domain suffix(es) > from /etc/resolv.conf. > > -- -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013 From chris.puchalski at raytheon.com Fri Jan 5 14:56:04 2018 From: chris.puchalski at raytheon.com (Chris PUCHALSKI) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:56:04 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior In-Reply-To: References: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> <6964527d-6333-316a-62ab-171f3e940ff9@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <9017037b8eb041dab9807ef8b350183f@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> Here is the entire end of the IncomingRunner.py file as it stands now: except Errors.HoldMessage: # Let the approval process take it from here. The message no # longer needs to be queued. return 0 except Errors.RejectMessage, e: #mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) #return 0 # Log this. syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s list: %s, handler: %s, reason: %s""", msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'), mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice()) mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) except: # Push this pipeline module back on the stack, then re-raise # the exception. pipeline.insert(0, handler) raise # We've successfully completed handling of this message return 0 Is that the "return 0" you speak of or does it need to appear higher rather than the end of the file? Christopher Puchalski Corporate IT Security Chris.Puchalski at raytheon.com -----Original Message----- From: Mailman-Users [mailto:mailman-users-bounces+chris.puchalski=raytheon.com at python.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sapiro Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 12:22 PM To: mailman-users at python.org Subject: [External] Re: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior On 01/05/2018 10:50 AM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote: > > IncomingRunner.py (portion containing Errors.RejectMessage): > > except Errors.RejectMessage, e: > #mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) > #return 0 > # Log this. > syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s > list: %s, handler: %s, reason: %s""", > msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'), > mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice()) > mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) The next line should be return 0 The commented bit #mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) #return 0 Is all there was in the 2.1.12 base. In 2.1 16 it was changed to except Errors.RejectMessage, e: # Log this. syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s list: %s, handler: %s, reason: %s""", msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'), mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice()) mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) return 0 It appears that someone has backported this and possibly dropped the return which may be the issue. I'm not certain. Without the return 0, the try: should fall through to the following return 0 anyway, so it really shouldn't matter. Also, if this is a RedHat change and it is the reason, I'm sure there would have been more complaints by now. I'm pretty much out of ideas at this point. If you want to tar up the entire /var/lib/mailman/Mailman directory and send it to me off list, I'll try to duplicate the issue. Other than that, I don't know what more to try. -- Mark Sapiro 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/chris.puchalski%40raytheon.com From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Fri Jan 5 14:56:24 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 13:56:24 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table In-Reply-To: References: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> <2cca784f-7d55-9196-a986-c2573c5d36e6@panix.com> <5c68da38-e222-7805-48b8-a1735e6f5d2f@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <01f2abf2-83a6-1953-dacb-660cc99b9bc0@bmrb.wisc.edu> On 01/05/2018 01:34 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: > On 01/05/2018 01:41 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: >> On 01/05/2018 11:49 AM, Ruben Safir wrote: >> >>> SMTPHost seems to do a non-mx record lookup for the value ... which is a >>> little strange. >> When you look up >> an MX, you can look up an MX for a *domain*, *or* you could look up an >> MX for a *host*. > > NO NO NO > > You are looking up a host. You can do that with a domain name, or a > specific host name, but you are looking up for a HOST, or more than a > single host with rankings, with a specific ip addresses. I think you are confused: I am not talking about what you get back, I am talking about what you ask *for*. You can ask for an MX record for *FOOHost*. You can ask an MX record for FOOHost's *domain*. They are *not the same* MX record and there is no mechanism to return the latter if you ask for the former. When you are *looking up a host*, you are asking for A/CNAME. That's a "non-mx record lookup" which you find "a little strange". It isn't. -- 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: From mrbrklyn at panix.com Fri Jan 5 15:13:29 2018 From: mrbrklyn at panix.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:13:29 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table In-Reply-To: <01f2abf2-83a6-1953-dacb-660cc99b9bc0@bmrb.wisc.edu> References: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> <2cca784f-7d55-9196-a986-c2573c5d36e6@panix.com> <5c68da38-e222-7805-48b8-a1735e6f5d2f@bmrb.wisc.edu> <01f2abf2-83a6-1953-dacb-660cc99b9bc0@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <3166bd85-059d-d51c-9754-c152765f302a@panix.com> On 01/05/2018 02:56 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > I think you are confused: I am not talking about what you get back, I am > talking about what you ask *for*. >I think you are confused: I am not talking about what you get back, I > am > talking about what you ask *for*. That is just not logical. WHen you ask FOR something, that is what you get back. > You can ask for an MX record for *FOOHost*. > You can ask an MX record for FOOHost's *domain*. That has nothing to do with this. > They are *not the same* MX record and there is no mechanism to return > the latter if you ask for the former. again, that has nothing to do with this. > When you are *looking up a host*, you are asking for A/CNAME. That is not a true statement. When you are looking for a MAIL host, it is logical to ask for it with an MX record. > That's a "non-mx record lookup" which you find "a little strange". > It isn't. To you. But in the world of mail and DNS, you look up a SMTP hosts with mx records. That was why we invented them... -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013 From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Fri Jan 5 15:32:35 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:32:35 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table In-Reply-To: <3166bd85-059d-d51c-9754-c152765f302a@panix.com> References: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> <2cca784f-7d55-9196-a986-c2573c5d36e6@panix.com> <5c68da38-e222-7805-48b8-a1735e6f5d2f@bmrb.wisc.edu> <01f2abf2-83a6-1953-dacb-660cc99b9bc0@bmrb.wisc.edu> <3166bd85-059d-d51c-9754-c152765f302a@panix.com> Message-ID: On 01/05/2018 02:13 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: > That is not a true statement. When you are looking for a MAIL host, it > is logical to ask for it with an MX record. Fine. Dig for an MX record for your defined SMTPHost and see what you get. -- 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: From mrbrklyn at panix.com Fri Jan 5 15:38:03 2018 From: mrbrklyn at panix.com (Ruben Safir) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table In-Reply-To: References: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> <2cca784f-7d55-9196-a986-c2573c5d36e6@panix.com> <5c68da38-e222-7805-48b8-a1735e6f5d2f@bmrb.wisc.edu> <01f2abf2-83a6-1953-dacb-660cc99b9bc0@bmrb.wisc.edu> <3166bd85-059d-d51c-9754-c152765f302a@panix.com> Message-ID: <98fba621-d41b-f4b4-1cb6-3b92ed7c8f85@panix.com> On 01/05/2018 03:32 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 01/05/2018 02:13 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: > >> That is not a true statement. When you are looking for a MAIL host, it >> is logical to ask for it with an MX record. > Fine. Dig for an MX record for your defined SMTPHost and see what you get. not what mailman does with the SMTPHost, and that is my point. It should be documented clearer (or fixed?). Reuvain -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013 From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Fri Jan 5 15:53:52 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 14:53:52 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] local recipient table In-Reply-To: <98fba621-d41b-f4b4-1cb6-3b92ed7c8f85@panix.com> References: <3e25e9ae-21ce-c8b9-847c-f7683ac143fc@panix.com> <2cca784f-7d55-9196-a986-c2573c5d36e6@panix.com> <5c68da38-e222-7805-48b8-a1735e6f5d2f@bmrb.wisc.edu> <01f2abf2-83a6-1953-dacb-660cc99b9bc0@bmrb.wisc.edu> <3166bd85-059d-d51c-9754-c152765f302a@panix.com> <98fba621-d41b-f4b4-1cb6-3b92ed7c8f85@panix.com> Message-ID: <9682fc8c-7227-d70e-7442-5e5dce06ddfd@bmrb.wisc.edu> On 01/05/2018 02:38 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: > not what mailman does with the SMTPHost, and that is my point. It > should be documented clearer (or fixed?). I think MX record is documented fairly clearly on e.g. wikipedia. The rest of it spelled out in Defaults.py in my installation: - "delivery module for *outgoing* mail" (emphasis mine: "outgoing" means MX doesn't apply), and - "make sure the host exists and is resolvable". Presumably mailman is not doing anything fancier than import socket socket.gethostbyname() and your non-fqdn SMTPHost will not resolve if you try the above in python shell. -- 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: From mark at msapiro.net Fri Jan 5 16:03:28 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 13:03:28 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Privacy Filter Unusual Behavior In-Reply-To: <9017037b8eb041dab9807ef8b350183f@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> References: <23e8c721a1a1451c8df5ff9d864b9c32@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> <576018a6-08c9-69a5-b0dd-7244cafa4137@msapiro.net> <6964527d-6333-316a-62ab-171f3e940ff9@msapiro.net> <9017037b8eb041dab9807ef8b350183f@SN1PR0601MB013.008f.mgd2.msft.net> Message-ID: <67b6915f-8ce6-9b9c-65ff-93d8834dc069@msapiro.net> On 01/05/2018 11:56 AM, Chris PUCHALSKI wrote: > Here is the entire end of the IncomingRunner.py file as it stands now: > > except Errors.HoldMessage: > # Let the approval process take it from here. The message no > # longer needs to be queued. > return 0 > except Errors.RejectMessage, e: > #mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) > #return 0 > # Log this. > syslog('vette', """Message rejected, msgid: %s > list: %s, handler: %s, reason: %s""", > msg.get('message-id', 'n/a'), > mlist.real_name, handler, e.notice()) > mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) > except: > # Push this pipeline module back on the stack, then re-raise > # the exception. > pipeline.insert(0, handler) > raise > # We've successfully completed handling of this message > return 0 > > Is that the "return 0" you speak of or does it need to appear higher rather than the end of the file? It should be OK. The upstream code has return 0 following mlist.BounceMessage(msg, msgdata, e) but without that, control will fall through the try: to the return 0 after the # We've successfully completed handling of this message comment so it should be the same. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From Richard at Damon-Family.org Fri Jan 5 22:31:39 2018 From: Richard at Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 22:31:39 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] New Problems with AOL & DMARC Message-ID: <2053dd64-28de-d07f-d867-f3a1683a7c43@Damon-Family.org> I use Mailman versioon 2.1.25 on a shared host, and in the past couple of days, something seems to have changed, as posts from AOL users are no longer getting their from address munged like they were a week ago, and I am getting massive bounces for DMARC rejection when a poster from AOL posts. Has something changed with their settings, and is their anything I can do about it? -- Richard Damon From mark at msapiro.net Fri Jan 5 22:55:21 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:55:21 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] New Problems with AOL & DMARC In-Reply-To: <2053dd64-28de-d07f-d867-f3a1683a7c43@Damon-Family.org> References: <2053dd64-28de-d07f-d867-f3a1683a7c43@Damon-Family.org> Message-ID: On 01/05/2018 07:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > I use Mailman versioon 2.1.25 on a shared host, and in the past couple > of days, something seems to have changed, as posts from AOL users are no > longer getting their from address munged like they were a week ago, and > I am getting massive bounces for DMARC rejection when a poster from AOL > posts. > > Has something changed with their settings, and is their anything I can > do about it? $ dig txt _dmarc.aol.com ... ;; ANSWER SECTION: _dmarc.aol.com. 3600 IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:d at rua.agari.com; ruf=mailto:d at ruf.agari.com;" So, they are still publishing p=reject, and in any case if their policy changed so dmarc_moderation_action wasn't being applied, the mail wouldn't bounce for DMARC either. First, ensure that the list's Privacy options... -> Sender filters -> dmarc_moderation_action is Mung From. Assuming it is, if you have access to Mailman's logs, check the 'error' log for messages like 'DNS lookup for dmarc_moderation_action for list not available' which means that import dns.resolver from dns.exception import DNSException (from the dnspython package) failed. Also look for messages containing DNSException or DMARC. Check the 'vette' log for messages like ': DMARC lookup for user at aol.com (_dmarc.yahoo.com) found p=reject in _dmarc.yahoo.com. = v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc_y_rua at yahoo.com;' which would indicate that the lookups are being done. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From Richard at Damon-Family.org Fri Jan 5 23:09:49 2018 From: Richard at Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 23:09:49 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] New Problems with AOL & DMARC In-Reply-To: References: <2053dd64-28de-d07f-d867-f3a1683a7c43@Damon-Family.org> Message-ID: On 1/5/18 10:55 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 01/05/2018 07:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> I use Mailman versioon 2.1.25 on a shared host, and in the past couple >> of days, something seems to have changed, as posts from AOL users are no >> longer getting their from address munged like they were a week ago, and >> I am getting massive bounces for DMARC rejection when a poster from AOL >> posts. >> >> Has something changed with their settings, and is their anything I can >> do about it? > $ dig txt _dmarc.aol.com > ... > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > _dmarc.aol.com. 3600 IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; > rua=mailto:d at rua.agari.com; ruf=mailto:d at ruf.agari.com;" > > So, they are still publishing p=reject, and in any case if their policy > changed so dmarc_moderation_action wasn't being applied, the mail > wouldn't bounce for DMARC either. > > > First, ensure that the list's Privacy options... -> Sender filters -> > dmarc_moderation_action is Mung From. > > Assuming it is, if you have access to Mailman's logs, check the 'error' > log for messages like 'DNS lookup for dmarc_moderation_action for list > not available' which means that > > import dns.resolver > from dns.exception import DNSException > > (from the dnspython package) failed. Also look for messages containing > DNSException or DMARC. > > Check the 'vette' log for messages like > > ': DMARC lookup for user at aol.com (_dmarc.yahoo.com) found > p=reject in _dmarc.yahoo.com. = v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; > rua=mailto:dmarc_y_rua at yahoo.com;' > > which would indicate that the lookups are being done. > Just a user on a shared host, so no access to logs or the like, thought I would check here before raising issue with Host in case it was a know issue. Haven't touched these settings in a long time: dmarc_moderation_action is Munge From, which had been working just a few days ago, and stopped. Sounds like its off to the host provider and see if they did something recently. -- Richard Damon From mark at msapiro.net Fri Jan 5 23:19:01 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 20:19:01 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] New Problems with AOL & DMARC In-Reply-To: References: <2053dd64-28de-d07f-d867-f3a1683a7c43@Damon-Family.org> Message-ID: On 01/05/2018 08:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > Sounds like its off to the host provider and see if they did something > recently. I suspect some problem with the dnspython package. If you can run Python in a shell, you can try import dns.resolver If that works, then the issue is something else, but if it fails, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Python instance that Mailman uses can't do it. The host can check Mailman's logs for the things I mentioned. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From Richard at Damon-Family.org Fri Jan 5 23:44:22 2018 From: Richard at Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 23:44:22 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] New Problems with AOL & DMARC In-Reply-To: References: <2053dd64-28de-d07f-d867-f3a1683a7c43@Damon-Family.org> Message-ID: On 1/5/18 11:19 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 01/05/2018 08:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> Sounds like its off to the host provider and see if they did something >> recently. > > I suspect some problem with the dnspython package. If you can run Python > in a shell, you can try > > import dns.resolver > > If that works, then the issue is something else, but if it fails, it > doesn't necessarily mean that the Python instance that Mailman uses > can't do it. > > The host can check Mailman's logs for the things I mentioned. > Unfortunately, they run Mailman on dedicated machines separate from the web hosting machines, so I can't run the test on that machine. I have forwarded your notes in a trouble ticket. -- Richard Damon From fmouse at fmp.com Tue Jan 9 00:43:29 2018 From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 23:43:29 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman CSRF Vulnerability Message-ID: <1515476609.28871.5.camel@fmp.com> I just installed a new list on MM 2.1.18-1 and one of the sharper folks on a related FB group noted that there is, or had been a CSRF vulnerability on some versions of MM2. A little research turned up ?in which Mark states that this has been fixed since 2.1.15. For the record, could someone confirm this? -- Lindsay Haisley ? ? ? | "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, FMP Computer Services | ? as if millions of voices suddenly cried out 512-259-1190 ? ? ? ? ?| ? ? in terror and were suddenly silenced." http://www.fmp.com? ? | ? ? ? ? ? ? ?- Obi-Wan Kenobi From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 9 12:10:57 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 09:10:57 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman CSRF Vulnerability In-Reply-To: <1515476609.28871.5.camel@fmp.com> References: <1515476609.28871.5.camel@fmp.com> Message-ID: <2ddf7f54-25c2-be10-64f1-94e8325bf2b6@msapiro.net> On 01/08/2018 09:43 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote: > I just installed a new list on MM 2.1.18-1 and one of the sharper folks > on a related FB group noted that there is, or had been a CSRF > vulnerability on some versions of MM2. A little research turned up > ?in which Mark states > that this has been fixed since 2.1.15. For the record, could someone > confirm this? It should have been fixed in 2.1.15, but for some reason, only part of the fix was merged and released with 2.1.15. The vulnerability in the web admin interface was fixed in 2.1.15, but the admindb, edithtml and options interfaces were still vulnerable. These were not fixed until 2.1.23. See . The comment thread contains a link to a patch to fix versions >= 2.1.15 and <= 2.1.22, however the version "2.1.18-1" indicates this is some distro's package and the patch may have already been backported. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From jim at jim-ratliff.name Tue Jan 9 13:36:47 2018 From: jim at jim-ratliff.name (Jim Ratliff) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:36:47 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] "[Errno 30] Read-only file system" error when accessing Mailman admin pages from outside of cPanel In-Reply-To: <4fc25702-8bbe-7d4e-cee8-d708b60f3ce4@msapiro.net> References: <6134C268-0AE1-4016-AF71-95812E26F4F6@jim-ratliff.name> <4fc25702-8bbe-7d4e-cee8-d708b60f3ce4@msapiro.net> Message-ID: > On Jan 2, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Mark Sapiro > wrote: > > Is the web server running on a separate host and accessing Mailman via > NTFS or similar or perhaps running in a jail that is not allowing write > access to /usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/archives/public? Mark, thanks for you explanation (now a week ago) and in particular your above-quoted diagnostic question. I realized that answering that was somewhat above my experience-with-servers level, so I involved cPanel into this question. See the thread: https://forums.cpanel.net/threads/read-only-file-system-error-accessing-mailman-admin.619067 Your hunch that Mailman is "perhaps running in a jail that is not allowing write access to /usr/local/cpanel/3rdparty/mailman/archives/public? seems spot on. cPanelMichael asked: > Can you verify if the "EXPERIMENTAL: Jail Apache Virtual Hosts using mod_ruid2 and cPanel? jailshell" option is enabled under the "Security" tab in "WHM >> Tweak Settings" on this system? If so, does temporarily disabling this option solve the issue? Indeed, I did have that option enabled (for no good reason; it?s default is disabled). When I disabled it, the problem went away. Further, cPanelMichael said: > The option is known to have some compatibility issues with Mailman (internal case CPANEL-9501 is open for this). There's currently no time frame on a potential solution, so for now it's likely a better approach to keep it disabled. So I?ve disabled this option, and I?m having no problems now in this regard. Thanks for your help! Jim From andrew at hodgsonfamily.org Wed Jan 10 12:37:34 2018 From: andrew at hodgsonfamily.org (Andrew Hodgson) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:37:34 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Changing the List URL and email domain Message-ID: Hi, I want to change the list URL and email domain, is there any way of keeping the old domain and URL active? Using Mailman 2.1.24 here. Thanks. Andrew. From fmouse at fmp.com Wed Jan 10 23:47:34 2018 From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 22:47:34 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman CSRF Vulnerability In-Reply-To: <2ddf7f54-25c2-be10-64f1-94e8325bf2b6@msapiro.net> References: <1515476609.28871.5.camel@fmp.com> <2ddf7f54-25c2-be10-64f1-94e8325bf2b6@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <1515646054.86982.10.camel@fmp.com> On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 09:10 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: > See . The comment > thread contains a link to a patch to fix versions >= 2.1.15 and <= > 2.1.22, however the version "2.1.18-1" indicates this is some distro's > package and the patch may have already been backported. Actually not.?"2.1.18-1" was the first full implementation of DMARC mitigation from y'all. It's listed as a standard version at http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/6P03K0AHFA.html?which shows it as vulnerable to a CSRF attack. I always build MM from source and haven't used a distro-provided version in years. I should probably update my installation to the latest version. I came on bug #775294 and apparently my version is vulnerable. Upgrading MM2 here is a bit of a PITA since I have to do a lot of patching to support the hacks I've done to MM over the years. -- 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 Thu Jan 11 14:00:42 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:00:42 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Changing the List URL and email domain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <763b853d-6217-6c15-eba8-f30c01746946@msapiro.net> On 01/10/2018 09:37 AM, Andrew Hodgson wrote: > Hi, > > I want to change the list URL and email domain, is there any way of keeping the old domain and URL active? Using Mailman 2.1.24 here. If I understand correctly, you want to change a list's domains by doing sonething like what's described at , but you still want mail to the old address and URLs with the old domain to go to the list. The URLs are just a matter of ensuring the old domain's DNS records (A, CNAME, whatever) point to the current Mailman server. For email, it's similar, although the records of concern are A and/or MX, but you also have to ensure that the MTA on the server still deliver's that mail to Mailman and in Mailman itself, you may need to add the old address to Privacy options... -> Recipient filters -> acceptable_aliases, although if the listname isn't changed, this last step probably isn't necessary. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From mark at msapiro.net Thu Jan 11 14:36:39 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:36:39 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman CSRF Vulnerability In-Reply-To: <1515646054.86982.10.camel@fmp.com> References: <1515476609.28871.5.camel@fmp.com> <2ddf7f54-25c2-be10-64f1-94e8325bf2b6@msapiro.net> <1515646054.86982.10.camel@fmp.com> Message-ID: <6fd8000a-df63-9296-506a-3b888007cf78@msapiro.net> On 01/10/2018 08:47 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote: > > Upgrading MM2 here is a bit of a PITA since I have to do a lot of > patching to support the hacks I've done to MM over the years. FWIW, the way I handle this is in the beginning, my production Mailman starts as a clone of the bzr branch at . I then apply local changes in that branch and commit them and then configure, make and make install it as usual. Then to update Mailman, I just do 'bzr merge'. Rarely, there will be a merge conflict that I have to resolve. Then in any case, I commit, configure, make and make install as usual. This makes updates fairly painless. I do this often and keep my production installs up to date with the HEAD, but I trust the guy doing the commits to the HEAD ;). To be more conservative one could add a revisionspec like -rtag:2.1.25 to the initial 'bzr branch' and likewise something like -rtag:2.1.26 for the 'bzr merge' to just stick to releases, all of which are tagged. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From fmouse at fmp.com Thu Jan 11 15:41:10 2018 From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:41:10 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman CSRF Vulnerability In-Reply-To: <6fd8000a-df63-9296-506a-3b888007cf78@msapiro.net> References: <1515476609.28871.5.camel@fmp.com> <2ddf7f54-25c2-be10-64f1-94e8325bf2b6@msapiro.net> <1515646054.86982.10.camel@fmp.com> <6fd8000a-df63-9296-506a-3b888007cf78@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <1515703270.12672.24.camel@fmp.com> On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 11:36 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 01/10/2018 08:47 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote: > > > > > > Upgrading MM2 here is a bit of a PITA since I have to do a lot of > > patching to support the hacks I've done to MM over the years. > > FWIW, the way I handle this is in the beginning, my production Mailman > starts as a clone of the bzr branch at > . I then apply > local changes in that branch and commit them and then configure, make > and make install it as usual. I've thought of setting up a Launchpad private (non-merging) repository with a MM2 copy including my various additions and mods and then creating a branch copy of it in my local mailman src collection. Periodically I could download the current published revision and merge it into my private version so I'd be up to date without nuking my personal patches and additions. This might create conflicts, though, if my local patches conflicted with a change of the officially merged version of some file, in which case there'd be a divergence which would have to be manually sorted. > Rarely, there will be a > merge conflict that I have to resolve. Then in any case, I commit, > configure, make and make install as usual. Probably what I'm talking about. > This makes updates fairly painless. I do this often and keep my > production installs up to date with the HEAD, but I trust the guy doing > the commits to the HEAD ;). > > To be more conservative one could add a revisionspec like -rtag:2.1.25 > to the initial 'bzr branch' and likewise something like -rtag:2.1.26 for > the 'bzr merge' to just stick to releases, all of which are tagged. I only partially understand this, Mark. I'll need to sit down and study it. Thanks! -- Lindsay Haisley | "The first casualty when FMP Computer Services | war comes is truth." 512-259-1190 | http://www.fmp.com | -- Hiram W Johnson From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Thu Jan 11 23:04:29 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:04:29 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] VCSing your local changes [was: Mailman CSRF Vulnerability] In-Reply-To: <1515703270.12672.24.camel@fmp.com> References: <1515476609.28871.5.camel@fmp.com> <2ddf7f54-25c2-be10-64f1-94e8325bf2b6@msapiro.net> <1515646054.86982.10.camel@fmp.com> <6fd8000a-df63-9296-506a-3b888007cf78@msapiro.net> <1515703270.12672.24.camel@fmp.com> Message-ID: <23128.13261.788051.194548@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Lindsay Haisley writes: > Probably what I'm talking about. Hmm... This is a good sign! > I only partially understand this, Mark. I'll need to sit down and study > it. Thanks! Do it soon: it's as easy as you think it is! Modern VCSes are good at this. "VCS means never having to say 'I'm fscked'."[1] Branches solve everything! Having a remote branch for backup is a great idea, by the way. Footnotes: [1] As long as you avoid "rm -rf ." while you have unpushed changes. From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Fri Jan 12 02:05:36 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:05:36 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman CSRF Vulnerability In-Reply-To: <1515703270.12672.24.camel@fmp.com> References: <1515476609.28871.5.camel@fmp.com> <2ddf7f54-25c2-be10-64f1-94e8325bf2b6@msapiro.net> <1515646054.86982.10.camel@fmp.com> <6fd8000a-df63-9296-506a-3b888007cf78@msapiro.net> <1515703270.12672.24.camel@fmp.com> Message-ID: <23128.24128.946107.175861@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Lindsay Haisley writes: > Probably what I'm talking about. Hmm... This is a good sign! > I only partially understand this, Mark. I'll need to sit down and study > it. Thanks! Do it soon. It's as easy as you think it is. Modern VCSes are good at this. "VCS means never having to say 'I'm fscked'."[1] Branches solve everything! Having a remote branch for backup is a great idea, by the way. Footnotes: [1] As long as you avoid "rm -rf ." while you have unpushed changes. From fmouse at fmp.com Fri Jan 12 02:03:01 2018 From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 01:03:01 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] VCSing your local changes [was: Mailman CSRF Vulnerability] In-Reply-To: <23128.13261.788051.194548@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <1515476609.28871.5.camel@fmp.com> <2ddf7f54-25c2-be10-64f1-94e8325bf2b6@msapiro.net> <1515646054.86982.10.camel@fmp.com> <6fd8000a-df63-9296-506a-3b888007cf78@msapiro.net> <1515703270.12672.24.camel@fmp.com> <23128.13261.788051.194548@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1515740581.21137.23.camel@fmp.com> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 13:04 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Lindsay Haisley writes: > > ?> Probably what I'm talking about. > > Hmm...??This is a good sign! > > ?> I only partially understand this, Mark. I'll need to sit down and > study > ?> it. Thanks! > > Do it soon:??it's as easy as you think it is!??Modern VCSes are good > at this.??"VCS means never having to say 'I'm fscked'."[1]??Branches > solve everything!??Having a remote branch for backup is a great idea, > by the way. Actually, in the short run, I've consolidated all my patches into a tarball with a Makefile, which gets the job done. Yes, VCS would be better. > > Footnotes:? > [1]??As long as you avoid "rm -rf ." while you have unpushed changes. We don't go there !!!!! -- Lindsay Haisley | "The first casualty when FMP Computer Services | war comes is truth." 512-259-1190 | http://www.fmp.com | -- Hiram W Johnson From jhs at berklix.com Fri Jan 12 10:43:32 2018 From: jhs at berklix.com (Julian H. Stacey) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:43:32 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sample of an Uncaught bounce notification Message-ID: <201801121543.w0CFhWd5059376@fire.js.berklix.net> Is this live sample of an Uncaught bounce notification useful to forward to developers to extend pattern matching. http://berklix.com/~jhs/tmp/mailman/uncaught_bounce_notification/1 Cheers, Julian -- Julian H. Stacey, Computer Consultant, BSD Linux Unix Systems Engineer, Munich http://berklix.eu/brexit/ UK stole 3,700,000 votes; 700,000 from Brits in EU. http://berklix.eu/queen/ Please sign petition to Queen: Help get votes back. From mark at msapiro.net Fri Jan 12 13:10:34 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:10:34 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sample of an Uncaught bounce notification In-Reply-To: <201801121543.w0CFhWd5059376@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <201801121543.w0CFhWd5059376@fire.js.berklix.net> Message-ID: <8e646b5e-7661-de5f-14d1-1ac38e92c70f@msapiro.net> On 01/12/2018 07:43 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Is this live sample of an Uncaught bounce notification useful to > forward to developers to extend pattern matching. > > http://berklix.com/~jhs/tmp/mailman/uncaught_bounce_notification/1 Thank you for your report. In this case, the message that is an "unrecognized bounce" is not an actual bounce of a list message. It is a message (looks like spam) sent directly to the gea-chat-bounces at ... address. This happens from time to time, but short of Mailman trying to recognize spam sent to the -bounces address, there's nothing we can do, and spam recognition and filtering is better done at the incoming MTA level. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Fri Jan 12 13:16:46 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:16:46 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sample of an Uncaught bounce notification In-Reply-To: <201801121543.w0CFhWd5059376@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <201801121543.w0CFhWd5059376@fire.js.berklix.net> Message-ID: <9a8ebd55-0133-bed7-6a73-eb3791985850@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/12/2018 08:43 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Is this live sample of an Uncaught bounce notification useful to > forward to developers to extend pattern matching. > > http://berklix.com/~jhs/tmp/mailman/uncaught_bounce_notification/1 I highly doubt it. The bounce that is in the email you linked to looks to be more an auto-reply than an actual bounce. The message that Mailman is considering to be an uncaught bounce does not have any of the typical hallmarks of any DSNs or MDNs that I've seen. - It is a single text/plain, not the expected multipart/report. - It is auto-replied (vacation), not auto-generated (failure). - It looks like a message that a human wrote (in two languages.) - It has an In-Reply-To header, which I've never seen in DSNs. My opinion is that this is the exact type of use case for a bounce message to be escalated to a human. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From tom.browder at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 12:27:01 2018 From: tom.browder at gmail.com (Tom Browder) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 17:27:01 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] MM3 book in the works Message-ID: I would love to see a new book on MM3. Anyone know of such a project proposed or in the works? FWIW, the new Perl 6 world (see https://perl6.org) has produced several books in the last year and some were started via various ?fund me? websites. Best regards, -Tom From rsk at gsp.org Sat Jan 13 12:38:29 2018 From: rsk at gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:38:29 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] MM3 book in the works In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180113173829.GA16176@gsp.org> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 05:27:01PM +0000, Tom Browder wrote: > I would love to see a new book on MM3. Anyone know of such a project > proposed or in the works? I've been working on a book about mailing list management and usage -- including MTAs, MLMs (such as Mailman), processes, best practices, etc. The MM material to this point has been MM2-centric, but I've been running various instances of MM3 and accumulating experience with it. This is intended -- somewhat -- as a modern version of "Managing Mailing Lists" by Schwartz, which is now 20 years old. Obviously the landscape has changed quite a bit since then; I don't think we need to worry much about UUCP-style addresses any more, but we do need to worry about DMARC. And so on. I can't see leaving out MM2 at this point, because a LOT of people are running and are going to be running it for years. But it would seem a disservice not to cover MM3. So I suspect, at the risk of some duplication, both with have to make the cut. ---rsk From tom.browder at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 13:34:03 2018 From: tom.browder at gmail.com (Tom Browder) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:34:03 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] MM3 book in the works In-Reply-To: <20180113173829.GA16176@gsp.org> References: <20180113173829.GA16176@gsp.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:07 Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 05:27:01PM +0000, Tom Browder wrote: > > I would love to see a new book on MM3. Anyone know of such a project > > proposed or in the works? > > I've been working on a book about mailing list management and usage -- > including MTAs, MLMs (such as Mailman), processes, best practices, etc. > The MM material to this point has been MM2-centric, but I've been running > various instances of MM3 and accumulating experience with it. Good deal, Rich, that book is sorely needed IMHO! Is there any place we can sign up to get a copy or see its status? Best regards, -Tom From dandrews at visi.com Mon Jan 15 15:26:40 2018 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:26:40 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Problem Delivering Mail Message-ID: Some of my lists, and some of my users are unable to send mail. The users get a message like this: Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: jobs at nfbnet.org local delivery failed Reporting-MTA: dns; host.nfbnet.org Action: failed Final-Recipient: rfc822;jobs at nfbnet.org Status: 5.0.0 Received: from smtp33.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp33.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id D8CA42B83 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:26:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by smtp33.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: xxx at yyy.zzzus) with ESMTPSA id A014A5807 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:26:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mmlenovo ([UNAVAILABLE]. [173.217.232.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.7.12); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:26:18 -0500 Received: from smtp64.iad3a.emailsrvr.com ([173.203.187.64]:33780) by host.nfbnet.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89_1) It is on more than one list -- and more than one user. This is a cPanel installation, but I don't know that this is related, and I have access to everything. Thanks for any ideas. Dave From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 15 16:03:28 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:03:28 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Problem Delivering Mail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/15/2018 12:26 PM, David Andrews wrote: > Some of my lists, and some of my users are unable to send mail. The > users get a message like this: > > Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender > > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. > > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: > > ? jobs at nfbnet.org > ??? local delivery failed > > Reporting-MTA: dns; host.nfbnet.org > > Action: failed > Final-Recipient: rfc822;jobs at nfbnet.org > Status: 5.0.0 ... > It is on more than one list -- and more than one user.? This is a cPanel > installation, but I don't know that this is related, and I have access > to everything. So presumably jobs at nfbnet.org is the list. If this is cPanel, the MTA is almost certainly Exim, and in my experiencer, Exim logs aren't as detailed as the ones I'm more used to, but what is in the Exim logs related to this message. You might also consider contacting cPanel about this. See and . -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From dandrews at visi.com Mon Jan 15 16:22:22 2018 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:22:22 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Problem Delivering Mail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 03:03 PM 1/15/2018, Mark Sapiro wrote: >On 01/15/2018 12:26 PM, David Andrews wrote: > >Some of my lists, and some of my users are >unable to send mail. The > users get a message >like this: > > Subject: Mail delivery failed: >returning message to sender > > This message was >created automatically by mail delivery >software. > > A message that you sent could not >be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. >This is a permanent error. The following >address(es) failed: > > ? jobs at nfbnet.org > ? ? >? local delivery failed > > Reporting-MTA: dns; >host.nfbnet.org > > Action: failed > >Final-Recipient: rfc822;jobs at nfbnet.org > >Status: 5.0.0 ... > It is on more than one list >-- and more than one user.? This is a cPanel > >installation, but I don't know that this is >related, and I have access > to everything. So >presumably jobs at nfbnet.org is the list. If this >is cPanel, the MTA is almost certainly Exim, and >in my experiencer, Exim logs aren't as detailed >as the ones I'm more used to, but what is in the >Exim logs related to this message. You might >also consider contacting cPanel about this. See > and >. -- Mark Sapiro Thanks everybody, things working again. Not sure what caused the problem, I did delete a file last night, but it shouldn't have broken all lists, but maybe it did. Got a auto message from cPanel about Mailman RPM being out of kilter, and gave me a command to fix. It basically reinstalled Mailman I think, but everything working again. Dave p.s. I know just enough to be dangerous -- which isn't very much! DA From odhiambo at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 15:58:10 2018 From: odhiambo at gmail.com (Odhiambo Washington) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 23:58:10 +0300 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Problem Delivering Mail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi David, You'll have to dig deeper into cPanel documentation to find where the problem is. If you have shell access, then a simple exim -bt jobs at nfbnet.org should tell you whether the address is deliverable or not. Exim+Mailman integration involves the MACROS, the routers and transports, and the mm_cfg.py and I must say I don't know how those are done with cPanel. I know how to do them via CLI though. On 15 January 2018 at 23:26, David Andrews wrote: > Some of my lists, and some of my users are unable to send mail. The users > get a message like this: > > Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender > > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. > > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: > > jobs at nfbnet.org > local delivery failed > > Reporting-MTA: dns; host.nfbnet.org > > Action: failed > Final-Recipient: rfc822;jobs at nfbnet.org > Status: 5.0.0 > > Received: from smtp33.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by smtp33.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id > D8CA42B83 > for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:26:18 -0500 (EST) > Received: by smtp33.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: > xxx at yyy.zzzus) with ESMTPSA id A014A5807 > for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:26:18 -0500 (EST) > Received: from mmlenovo ([UNAVAILABLE]. [173.217.232.59]) > (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) > by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.7.12); > Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:26:18 -0500 > Received: from smtp64.iad3a.emailsrvr.com ([173.203.187.64]:33780) > by host.nfbnet.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM- > SHA384:256) > (Exim 4.89_1) > > > It is on more than one list -- and more than one user. This is a cPanel > installation, but I don't know that this is related, and I have access to > everything. > > Thanks for any ideas. > > Dave > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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/odhiam > bo%40gmail.com > -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223 "Oh, the cruft." From johnl at taugh.com Tue Jan 16 11:43:16 2018 From: johnl at taugh.com (John Levine) Date: 16 Jan 2018 11:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] options for dealing with DMARC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20180116164317.2F8F1191DCDD@ary.qy> In article you write: >On 12/28/2017 12:57 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: >> Wikipedia tells me that DMARC passes if either SPF or DKIM passes. That is correct. >Sending domain administrators can require that *both* SPF /and/ DKIM >must pass for DMARC to pass. So your /or/ premise is likely not going >to work out as well as you had hoped. That is wrong. See RFC 7489. R's, John From tran at isoc.org Mon Jan 15 14:44:05 2018 From: tran at isoc.org (Dang Tran) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:44:05 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Retention policy for archives Message-ID: Hi ? I?d like to setup a retention policy to delete all archives older than 1yr. please help me to setup this. thanks ------- Best Regards, Dang From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 16 13:04:41 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:04:41 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] options for dealing with DMARC In-Reply-To: <20180116164317.2F8F1191DCDD@ary.qy> References: <20180116164317.2F8F1191DCDD@ary.qy> Message-ID: <27fe01d9-293a-2d38-e497-46760dbd88e7@msapiro.net> On 01/16/2018 08:43 AM, John Levine wrote: > In article you write: >> On 12/28/2017 12:57 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: >>> Wikipedia tells me that DMARC passes if either SPF or DKIM passes. > > That is correct. But only if the domains "align". I.e. DMARC passes if SPF passes and the envelope sender domain aligns with the From: domain or if DKIM passes and the domain of the DKIM signature aligns with the From: domain. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 16 13:17:04 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:17:04 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Retention policy for archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/15/2018 11:44 AM, Dang Tran wrote: > Hi ? I?d like to setup a retention policy to delete all archives older than 1yr. please help me to setup this. thanks See the script at (mirrored at ). You could run this periodically via cron to do what you want. The down side of this is each time you run it, the messages in the archive will be renumbered and prior saved URLs to archived messages will no longer work. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 16 13:46:43 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:46:43 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Retention policy for archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dcdc52-e0b3-83b9-69e1-732dbc215752@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/16/2018 11:17 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > The down side of this is each time you run it, the messages in the > archive will be renumbered and prior saved URLs to archived messages > will no longer work. It seems like it would be possible to augment the prune_arch script to add place holder messages for pruned messages thus making sure that the prior saved URLs would still be valid. I.e.: | From: Pruned | To: Mail List | Subject: Pruned | Date: $originalDate | | This message has been pruned from the archive. I think that the ~160 bytes that each pruned message would consume would be worth retaining the functionality of the prior saved URLs. Just my 2? worth. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From scott at qth.com Tue Jan 16 14:03:44 2018 From: scott at qth.com (Scott Neader) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:03:44 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Retention policy for archives In-Reply-To: <68dcdc52-e0b3-83b9-69e1-732dbc215752@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <68dcdc52-e0b3-83b9-69e1-732dbc215752@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: I love this idea. If anyone actually modifies the script to do this, please let me know. At the very least, it preserves the "history" that the message existed, along with the subject line. Sometimes, that is enough to be very helpful! - Scott On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users < mailman-users at python.org> wrote: > On 01/16/2018 11:17 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > >> The down side of this is each time you run it, the messages in the >> archive will be renumbered and prior saved URLs to archived messages will >> no longer work. >> > > It seems like it would be possible to augment the prune_arch script to add > place holder messages for pruned messages thus making sure that the prior > saved URLs would still be valid. I.e.: > > | From: Pruned > | To: Mail List > | Subject: Pruned > | Date: $originalDate > | > | This message has been pruned from the archive. > > I think that the ~160 bytes that each pruned message would consume would > be worth retaining the functionality of the prior saved URLs. > > Just my 2? worth. From barry at list.org Wed Jan 17 00:58:10 2018 From: barry at list.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:58:10 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] MM3 book in the works In-Reply-To: <20180113173829.GA16176@gsp.org> References: <20180113173829.GA16176@gsp.org> Message-ID: <30D0D247-EB86-4FAA-AD7A-39E174A68E1A@list.org> On Jan 13, 2018, at 09:38, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > I've been working on a book about mailing list management and usage -- > including MTAs, MLMs (such as Mailman), processes, best practices, etc. > The MM material to this point has been MM2-centric, but I've been running > various instances of MM3 and accumulating experience with it. > > This is intended -- somewhat -- as a modern version of "Managing > Mailing Lists" by Schwartz, which is now 20 years old. Obviously > the landscape has changed quite a bit since then; I don't think > we need to worry much about UUCP-style addresses any more, but we > do need to worry about DMARC. And so on. > > I can't see leaving out MM2 at this point, because a LOT of people are > running and are going to be running it for years. But it would seem > a disservice not to cover MM3. So I suspect, at the risk of some > duplication, both with have to make the cut. Very cool, Rich. And I think you?ve got exactly the right focus. Best of luck and do let us know when you?ve got something you need reviewed, or if you have any questions at all (esp. regarding MM3). -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From joao.sa.marta at uc.pt Wed Jan 17 06:19:04 2018 From: joao.sa.marta at uc.pt (=?utf-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_S=C3=A1_Marta?=) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:19:04 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Deleting pending.pck.tmp files Message-ID: <0295E0A7-8843-4924-8FF6-F95F84259797@uc.pt> Greetings, I?ve noticed that I have in my mailman installation (version 2.1.9.) a lot of pending.pck.tmp.XXXXXXX files in several mailing lists directories /home/mailman/lists/LISTNAME: -rw-rw---- 1 apache mailman 6353027 Jan 17 11:02 pending.pck -rw-rw---- 1 apache mailman 711556 Oct 26 17:23 pending.pck.tmp.1000.1509035033 -rw-rw---- 1 apache mailman 14136390 Oct 26 17:24 pending.pck.tmp.1017.1509035052 -rw-rw---- 1 apache mailman 1260000 Jan 6 2017 pending.pck.tmp.10183.1483700222 -rw-rw-? 1 apache mailman 16083210 Aug 24 17:26 pending.pck.tmp.10631.1503592014 The contents of those files are subscriptions notifications. Here is part of the output using /mailman/bin/dumpdb -p ), 'fe640c0796148819f87918e9ab5dbc909b2dd846': ( 'S', ), 'fe66252d7408b34d2a6910e2b89e3e907e008dbe': ( 'S', ), Is it safe to delete those files ? Thanks in advance, Jo?o From mark at msapiro.net Wed Jan 17 21:04:29 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:04:29 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Deleting pending.pck.tmp files In-Reply-To: <0295E0A7-8843-4924-8FF6-F95F84259797@uc.pt> References: <0295E0A7-8843-4924-8FF6-F95F84259797@uc.pt> Message-ID: On 01/17/2018 03:19 AM, Jo?o S? Marta wrote: > Greetings, > > > I?ve noticed that I have in my mailman installation (version 2.1.9.) a lot of pending.pck.tmp.XXXXXXX files in several mailing lists directories /home/mailman/lists/LISTNAME: > > -rw-rw---- 1 apache mailman 6353027 Jan 17 11:02 pending.pck This is the real Pending database. It's size is way too big. It contains the tokens for things like Subscruptions, Unsubscriptions, Held messages, etc waiting some kind of confirmation. Requests older than PENDING_REQUEST_LIFE (default 3 days) are expunged so it's hard to imagine why it is that big. > -rw-rw---- 1 apache mailman 711556 Oct 26 17:23 pending.pck.tmp.1000.1509035033 > -rw-rw---- 1 apache mailman 14136390 Oct 26 17:24 pending.pck.tmp.1017.1509035052 > -rw-rw---- 1 apache mailman 1260000 Jan 6 2017 pending.pck.tmp.10183.1483700222 > -rw-rw-? 1 apache mailman 16083210 Aug 24 17:26 pending.pck.tmp.10631.1503592014 These are orphaned files and can be removed. When the Pending module saves the file, it saves it to pending.pck.tmp.ppp.tttt (ppp is the PID of the process and tttt is a timestamp) and after successful saving renames the pending.pck.tmp.ppp.tttt as pending.pck, so there should never be any of these files left around. You need to look at Mailman's 'error' log for entries with time stamps like those files for clues as to what's going wrong. Also, see the script at (mirrored at ) for a slightly more human friendly listing of the pending db. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Thu Jan 18 06:24:00 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 20:24:00 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] MM3 book in the works In-Reply-To: References: <20180113173829.GA16176@gsp.org> Message-ID: <23136.33744.317999.214248@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Besides Rich's forthcoming book, Barry has an existing chapter on Mailman's architecture in The Architecture of Open Source Applications, Vol. II (eds. Amy Brown and Greg Wilson). Tom Browder writes: > On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:07 Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > I've been working on a book about mailing list management and usage -- > > including MTAs, MLMs (such as Mailman), processes, best practices, etc. > > The MM material to this point has been MM2-centric, but I've been running > > various instances of MM3 and accumulating experience with it. From samarta at ci.uc.pt Thu Jan 18 09:19:53 2018 From: samarta at ci.uc.pt (=?utf-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_S=C3=A1_Marta?=) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:19:53 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Deleting pending.pck.tmp files In-Reply-To: References: <0295E0A7-8843-4924-8FF6-F95F84259797@uc.pt> Message-ID: <7E2AF9D7-780C-4B98-A69E-954EF1A682DE@ci.uc.pt> Hi Mark, Thank you for your information. I?ve been using Mailman since 2000. I also contributed to Portuguese translation some years ago. Great software. I have about 500 mailing lists, and have done some integration with Mhonarch. > > This is the real Pending database. It's size is way too big. It contains > the tokens for things like Subscruptions, Unsubscriptions, Held > messages, etc waiting some kind of confirmation. Requests older than > PENDING_REQUEST_LIFE (default 3 days) are expunged so it's hard to > imagine why it is that big. I guess that?s caused by spam. Looked at my httpd logs and I?ve found a site ( http://www.skyju.cc/mailhzj.html ) that is a spam bomber and it sends subscription requests to 500 mailman lists spreaded all over the world. Just look at the page source of http://www.skyju.cc/mailhzj.html . One of my mailing lists is listed there. There?s the code of that page that sends a subscription request to one of my mailing lists :document.write(?"); I am going to put some apache rewrite rules to prevent this, but I don?t know if this is the best way to prevent that kind of spam. Please let me know if you have a better way to deal with this spam. Thanks again, Jo?o Maria Montezuma Carvalho de S? Marta Especialista de Inform?tica Universidade de Coimbra ? Administra??o SGSIIC ? Gest?o de Sistemas e Infraestruturas de Informa??o e Comunica??o Divis?o de Sistemas de Informa??o Rua Arco da Trai??o ? 3003-056 ? Coimbra ? Portugal Tel. | Phone: +351 239 242 885 E-mail joao.sa.marta at uc.pt www.uc.pt/administracao Este email pretende ser amigo do ambiente. Pondere antes de o imprimir! A Universidade de Coimbra d? prefer?ncia a produtos e servi?os com menor impacto ambiental. From mark at msapiro.net Thu Jan 18 14:13:33 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:13:33 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Deleting pending.pck.tmp files In-Reply-To: <7E2AF9D7-780C-4B98-A69E-954EF1A682DE@ci.uc.pt> References: <0295E0A7-8843-4924-8FF6-F95F84259797@uc.pt> <7E2AF9D7-780C-4B98-A69E-954EF1A682DE@ci.uc.pt> Message-ID: On 01/18/2018 06:19 AM, Jo?o S? Marta wrote: > There?s the code of that page that sends a subscription request to one of my mailing lists > :document.write(?"); > > I am going to put some apache rewrite rules to prevent this, but I don?t know if this is the best way to prevent that kind of spam. > > Please let me know if you have a better way to deal with this spam. We have seen some of this in the past. If the subscribed addresses ("+spam_id+" in the above) are such that you can create a regexp to match them and not match potential real subscribers, you can add such regexps to GLOBAL_BAN_LIST. Some that we have used in the past are: ^.*\+.*\d{3,}@ ^.*@kezukaya\.com$ ^[.a-z0-9]{8,}\+[0-9]{4,}@gmail\.com$ ^.*k\.*e\.*m\.*o\.*m\.*a\.*r\.*t.*@gmail\.com ^.*k\.*e\.*z\.*u\.*k\.*a\.*y\.*a.*@gmail\.com ^.*s\.*u\.*n\.*i\.*b\.*e\.*e\.*s\.*t\.*a\.*r\.*s.*@gmail\.com Also, you need to set SUBSCRIBE_FORM_SECRET in mm_cfg.py to some string unique to your site to force a GET of the listinfo page to get a hidden token that needs to be submitted along with the other data to the 'subscribe' URL. See the documentation of SUBSCRIBE_FORM_SECRET in Defaults.py -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From my_list_address at yahoo.no Sat Jan 20 13:18:47 2018 From: my_list_address at yahoo.no (Hal) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 19:18:47 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working Message-ID: I'm a little confused about the "reply-to" setting as I was pretty sure I had set my list up so that all replies by default go back to the list, but for some reason a reply goes directly to the sender. I had "reply_goes_to_list" set to "this list" along with the list's posting address set for the "reply_to_adress". Since this didn't work and I tried to read the details/help for the Mailman web-interface but can't seem to figure this out. I did change the "reply_goes_to_list" setting to "Explicit address" but that didn't appear to change anything. I'm on Mailman 2.1.12. Hal From mark at msapiro.net Sat Jan 20 14:05:15 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 11:05:15 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> On 01/20/2018 10:18 AM, Hal via Mailman-Users wrote: > I'm a little confused about the "reply-to" setting as I was pretty sure > I had set my list up so that all replies by default go back to the list, > but for some reason a reply goes directly to the sender. If you set "reply_goes_to_list" to "this list", "reply_to_address" is ignored, and Mailman adds the list posting address to a Reply-To: header in the outgoing mail. If there is an incoming Reply-To: and "first_strip_reply_to" is "no" the address is added to the incoming Reply-To:. If there is no incoming Reply-To: or "first_strip_reply_to" is "yes", the address is the only address in the outgoing Reply-To:. If "reply_goes_to_list" is "explicit address" then "reply_to_address" is added rather than the list posting address. If "reply_to_address" is the list posting address, then it's the same as "this list". What actually happens with "reply" depends on a few things. If the mail client involved is Thunderbird, it doesn't behave as expected. See . In short, in recent T'bird if the message has a List-Post: header and T'bird offers a "Reply List" button, "Reply" will ignore Reply-To: if it's the list address and reply to the From:. In more recent T'bird, you can restore the expected behavior be setting mail.override_list_reply_to False in the config editor (see ), but this has to be done by every list member that uses T'bird. There are other possibilities, but I think the above is the likely issue in your case. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From mark at msapiro.net Sat Jan 20 15:43:21 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 12:43:21 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 2.1.26 Security release Feb 4, 2018 Message-ID: <68476c0b-f481-1ff3-4cd1-0b5f01dbc5cf@msapiro.net> An XSS vulnerability in the Mailman 2.1 web UI has been reported and assigned CVE-2018-5950 which is not yet public. I plan to release Mailman 2.1.26 along with a patch for older releases to fix this issue on Feb 4, 2018. At that time, full details of the vulnerability will be public. This is advance notice of the upcoming release and patch for those that need a week or two to prepare. The patch will be small and only affect one module. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pshute at nuw.org.au Sun Jan 21 03:13:13 2018 From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 08:13:13 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server Message-ID: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> We?re finding that messages sent to our list by Mac users are having jpg attachments removed. I assume this is something to do with the list being plain text only, and the email format created by the mail program Macs use. We?re also finding that if ipad/iphone users send emails with photos, the list lets the photos through, but iPad/iphone users can?t see them, causing them to assume they?ve been stripped off. Evidence for these symptoms is partly anecdotal, so might not be exactly right. It?s hard to get information from users about exactly which device and which program they used to create the emails. Has anyone else seen the same things? Is there any easy fix for them? Peter Shute Sent from my iPad From luscheina at yahoo.de Sun Jan 21 09:02:45 2018 From: luscheina at yahoo.de (Christian F Buser) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 15:02:45 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> Message-ID: <20180121150245565049.eeeb72f8@yahoo.de> Hello Peter Shute. On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 08:13:13 +0000, you wrote: > We?re finding that messages sent to our list by Mac users are having > jpg attachments removed. I assume this is something to do with the > list being plain text only, and the email format created by the mail > program Macs use. No, it has nothing to do with "the email format created by the mail program Macs use", because these mail programs have to follow the same rules as all mail programs do. Otherwise they just would be useless. I would rather guess that these images were embedded in the mail message?s HTML text and not real attachments. And when the HTML is deleted by Mailman, the images are of course also no longer showing. > We?re also finding that if ipad/iphone users send emails with photos, > the list lets the photos through, but iPad/iphone users can?t see > them, causing them to assume they?ve been stripped off. Not sure, but I think this is all a problem between the chair and the keyboard of the sender or the recipient... 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 Sun Jan 21 12:30:59 2018 From: cpz at tuunq.com (Carl Zwanzig) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 09:30:59 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> Message-ID: On 1/21/2018 12:13 AM, Peter Shute wrote: > We?re finding that messages sent to our list by Mac users are having jpg attachments removed. I assume this is something to do with the list being plain text only... If the list is plain-text only, I'd be more curious how images were making their way through, not the reverse. z! From ricardo at americasnet.com Sun Jan 21 12:48:46 2018 From: ricardo at americasnet.com (Ricardo Kleemann) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 09:48:46 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] too many recipients Message-ID: Hello, I'm using mailman 2.x with postfix with much trouble. Recently I started seeing a lot of errors like this: delivery to xxx failed with code 452: 4.5.3 Error: too many recipients I do have both mailman and postfix configured for max recipients of 10, so I don't understand why there would still be complaints. Any suggestions on how else I can further debug this? thanks Ricardo From Richard at Damon-Family.org Sun Jan 21 12:57:12 2018 From: Richard at Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:57:12 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> Message-ID: <77d33a28-aa4b-0a5b-ca3a-91593699bc9e@Damon-Family.org> On 1/21/18 12:30 PM, Carl Zwanzig wrote: > On 1/21/2018 12:13 AM, Peter Shute wrote: >> We?re finding that messages sent to our list by Mac users are having >> jpg attachments removed. I assume this is something to do with the >> list being plain text only... > > If the list is plain-text only, I'd be more curious how images were > making their way through, not the reverse. > > z! For what is normally called a 'plain text only list', yes, I would be very surprised to see any pictures. I think it may be possible by enabling the HTML -> Text conversion, but NOT filtering out non-text sections, you might be able to create a semi-text only list, and in such a case, there may be ways to embed an image inline that it gets lost, as well as including the image as its own section so it gets through. -- Richard Damon From mark at msapiro.net Sun Jan 21 13:07:24 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:07:24 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> Message-ID: On 01/21/2018 09:30 AM, Carl Zwanzig wrote: > On 1/21/2018 12:13 AM, Peter Shute wrote: >> We?re finding that messages sent to our list by Mac users are having >> jpg attachments removed. I assume this is something to do with the >> list being plain text only... > > If the list is plain-text only, I'd be more curious how images were > making their way through, not the reverse. Exactly! In order to say more, we'd need to see all the content filtering settings for the list and the emails at issue. Ideally, we'd like a raw email as sent to the list, but even the resultant email from the list might be helpful. I.e., for the ideal case, have the user mail to the list with a Bcc: to you. Then, show us the content filtering settings and both raw emails, the list mail and the direct Bcc:. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From mark at msapiro.net Sun Jan 21 13:18:56 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:18:56 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] too many recipients In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 01/21/2018 09:48 AM, Ricardo Kleemann wrote: > > I'm using mailman 2.x with postfix with much trouble. Recently I started > seeing a lot of errors like this: > > delivery to xxx failed with code 452: 4.5.3 Error: too many recipients > > > I do have both mailman and postfix configured for max recipients of 10, so > I don't understand why there would still be complaints. Do you mean you have set SMTP_MAX_RCPTS = 10 in mm_cfg.py. That would limit the maximum number of recipients in one SMTP transaction from Mailman to Postfix to 10. Other settings such as VERP_DELIVERY_INTERVAL could reduce that further, but it would never be more. This doesn't seem to be a Mailman issue, but if I were trying to diagnose it, I'd look at all the Postfix log entries for such a message, and I'd also determine if this is a single domain returning this error or multiple different domains and since it is a 4xx error it should be retried, and what happens on retry? -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Mon Jan 22 02:52:15 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:52:15 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> Message-ID: <23141.38959.248555.678770@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Peter Shute writes: > Evidence for these symptoms is partly anecdotal, so might not be > exactly right. It?s hard to get information from users about > exactly which device and which program they used to create the > emails. Has anyone else seen the same things? Is there any easy fix > for them? If you have access to the host or perhaps through the web interface to the archives, you can get the "mbox" files. This is typically in /var/lib/mailman/archives/private/LIST.mbox/LIST.mbox, where LIST is the mailbox name (the posting address) for the list. These contain full messages, including attachments. You can read these with a text editor or pager, and should be able to find the original messages that cause problems. There will often be a User-Agent: or X-Mailer: header field which describes the mail program that composed the message. There are a number of unusual aspects to mail with Apple devices, I believe primarily when using Apple's Mail program, and I know that it's finicky about reading mail. Specifically, as other replies mentioned, they like to embed non-text media in HTML rather than attach them to the mail. Other than that I can't say much. It would help to see examples of failing messages, both in the LIST.mbox format and as saved in the YEAR-MONTH.txt files (which you can find below "public" next to the "private" folder, or in the "private" folder for private lists). Feel free to either redact identifying information or send any example messages to me or Mark or both at our personal addresses. What's important to solving the problems are the message and part headers, and the HTML structure. It's also helpful if the attachments are undisturbed. If any of the above makes no sense, feel free to ask for more explicit instructions. This stuff is tedious, and Mark and I not only wasted our youth but much of our adult life learning it. We wouldn't impose that on you! :-) Steve From my_list_address at yahoo.no Mon Jan 22 07:01:03 2018 From: my_list_address at yahoo.no (Hal) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:01:03 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <7d7d2b81-5644-7913-706d-a5076865cf4d@yahoo.no> On 20/01/18 20:05, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 01/20/2018 10:18 AM, Hal via Mailman-Users wrote: >> I'm a little confused about the "reply-to" setting as I was pretty sure >> I had set my list up so that all replies by default go back to the list, >> but for some reason a reply goes directly to the sender. > recent T'bird if the message has a List-Post: header and T'bird offers a > "Reply List" button, "Reply" will ignore Reply-To: if it's the list > address and reply to the From:. In more recent T'bird, you can restore > the expected behavior be setting mail.override_list_reply_to False in > the config editor (see > ), but this has to > be done by every list member that uses T'bird. > > There are other possibilities, but I think the above is the likely issue > in your case. Thanks Mark! Yes, that was the problem here as I'm a Thunderbird user. Changing the above preference now makes it possible to just press "Reply" and it goes to the list. I did notice a "Reply to list" option ("Message"-"Reply to list" menu) but I like to keep things simple, so a single "Reply" button is much preferred. I've posted a message to my mailing list about this so that hopefully every Thunderbird user will do the same (only to remember to do a "Reply to all" and remove the list address for reply-postings not meant for the list but rather directly to the sender). Apart from Thunderbird, are there other email apps which cause this issue? Hal From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 10:56:43 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 07:56:43 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: <23141.38959.248555.678770@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> <23141.38959.248555.678770@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <09af75db-60e5-7f2f-6a20-7165f5902b26@msapiro.net> On 01/21/2018 11:52 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > If you have access to the host or perhaps through the web interface to > the archives, you can get the "mbox" files. This is typically in > /var/lib/mailman/archives/private/LIST.mbox/LIST.mbox, where LIST is > the mailbox name (the posting address) for the list. These contain > full messages, including attachments. After content filtering. > You can read these with a text editor or pager, and should be able to > find the original messages that cause problems. The original message as received by Mailman before content filtering isn't saved anywhere. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 11:46:34 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 08:46:34 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <7d7d2b81-5644-7913-706d-a5076865cf4d@yahoo.no> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <7d7d2b81-5644-7913-706d-a5076865cf4d@yahoo.no> Message-ID: On 01/22/2018 04:01 AM, Hal via Mailman-Users wrote: > > Apart from Thunderbird, are there other email apps which cause this issue? Thunderbird is the only MUA I'm aware of that does this. Their theory is since they offer a "Reply List" button, if you "Reply" you must want to reply to the sender since if you wanted to reply to the list you'd use "Reply List". This of course ignores everyone who uses "Reply" or control-R habitually without thinking about it. This has been argued to death in the bug reports. I wish they'd made the default honor the Reply-To:, but we're lucky we got an option at all. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From attila at kinali.ch Mon Jan 22 08:12:08 2018 From: attila at kinali.ch (Attila Kinali) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:12:08 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mailman not creating archives Message-ID: <20180122141208.32b3ca61cfa87cdc636cc467@kinali.ch> Hi, I have here a mailman installation on debian/stable. Everything works fine, beside mailman not creating archives, for none of the mailinglists. I am pretty sure it's just a form of PEBCAK and I forgot to set a flag somewhere, but I cannot find it. The mailinglist config looks as follows: ## Archive options # # List traffic archival policies. # Archive messages? # # legal values are: # 0 = "No" # 1 = "Yes" archive = True # Is archive file source for public or private archival? # # legal values are: # 0 = "public" # 1 = "private" archive_private = 0 # How often should a new archive volume be started? # # legal values are: # 0 = "Yearly" # 1 = "Monthly" # 2 = "Quarterly" # 3 = "Weekly" # 4 = "Daily" archive_volume_frequency = 1 There is nothing in the logs and I checked that the permissions of the directories are as they should be (comparing to an other installation, also on debian/stable, where it works). I kind of run out of places to check. So, I would appreciate any hint as to where to look. Thanks in advance. Attila Kinali -- It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. All the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world is of no use without that foundation. -- Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 12:00:15 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:00:15 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mailman not creating archives In-Reply-To: <20180122141208.32b3ca61cfa87cdc636cc467@kinali.ch> References: <20180122141208.32b3ca61cfa87cdc636cc467@kinali.ch> Message-ID: <65e29027-32e3-b6aa-933f-d582c3185462@msapiro.net> On 01/22/2018 05:12 AM, Attila Kinali wrote: > Hi, > > I have here a mailman installation on debian/stable. > Everything works fine, beside mailman not creating archives, > for none of the mailinglists. Have you set ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX in mm_cfg.py (or changed it in Defaults.py) or possibly set PUBLIC_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER. >From Defaults.py: # ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX #-1 - do not do any archiving # 0 - do not archive to mbox, use builtin mailman html archiving only # 1 - do not use builtin mailman html archiving, archive to mbox only # 2 - archive to both mbox and builtin mailman html archiving. # See the settings below for PUBLIC_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER and # PRIVATE_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER which can be used to replace mailman's # builtin html archiving with an external archiver. The flat mail # mbox file can be useful for searching, and is another way to # interface external archivers, etc. ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX = 2 -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Mon Jan 22 12:24:41 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:24:41 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/20/2018 12:05 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > What actually happens with "reply" depends on a few things. If the mail > client involved is Thunderbird, it doesn't behave as expected. See > . In > short, in recent T'bird if the message has a List-Post: header > and T'bird offers a "Reply List" button, "Reply" will ignore > Reply-To: if it's the list address and reply to the From:. In > more recent T'bird, you can restore the expected behavior be > setting mail.override_list_reply_to False in the config editor (see > ), but this has > to be done by every list member that uses T'bird. Oh for $&#* sake. I'm not going to get into the pros / cons of either way. I tried following the bugs to discern the actual behavior changes that mail.override_list_reply_to changes. But I was unable to make heads or tale of what it does. Further, my tests didn't shed any light on things. Will someone please enlighten me on how mail.override_list_reply_to behaves when set to true (the default) vs false? I couldn't keep track of the previous behavior and current behavior through all of the things that I read. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 12:37:23 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:37:23 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 01/22/2018 09:24 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > Will someone please enlighten me on how mail.override_list_reply_to > behaves when set to true (the default) vs false? With the default mail.override_list_reply_to = False, for a message with a List-Post: header and with the list posting address also in a Reply-To: header, T'bird will ignore the Reply-To: header and address a "Reply" to the From: address. Setting mail.override_list_reply_to = True will restore RFC compliant behavior and address a "Reply" to the Reply-To: header address(es). -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Mon Jan 22 13:58:48 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:58:48 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/22/2018 10:37 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > With the default mail.override_list_reply_to = False, for a message with > a List-Post: header and with the list posting address also in a Reply-To: > header, T'bird will ignore the Reply-To: header and address a "Reply" > to the From: address. > > Setting mail.override_list_reply_to = True will restore RFC compliant > behavior and address a "Reply" to the Reply-To: header address(es). Thank you for the concise answer Mark. :-) What I find interesting is that mail.override_list_reply_to is set to True by default in my copy of Thunderbird, 52.5.0. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From my_list_address at yahoo.no Mon Jan 22 13:52:12 2018 From: my_list_address at yahoo.no (Hal) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:52:12 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 22/01/18 18:24, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > Will someone please enlighten me on how mail.override_list_reply_to > behaves when set to true (the default) vs false? If set to TRUE (the default value) replies will go directly to the sender of the message. If set to FALSE, replies will go to the mailing list. That's my experience anyway (I use Thunderbird 52.5.2 Mac). Hal From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 14:17:09 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:17:09 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <3da53544-d5d2-1146-2c66-ef3b79de4e84@msapiro.net> On 01/22/2018 10:58 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 01/22/2018 10:37 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: >> With the default mail.override_list_reply_to = False, for a message >> with a List-Post: header and with the list posting address also in a >> Reply-To: header, T'bird will ignore the Reply-To: header and address >> a "Reply" to the From: address. >> >> Setting mail.override_list_reply_to = True will restore RFC compliant >> behavior and address a "Reply" to the Reply-To: header address(es). > > Thank you for the concise answer Mark.? :-) > > What I find interesting is that mail.override_list_reply_to is set to > True by default in my copy of Thunderbird, 52.5.0. My bad. I was confused. In my answer above, "False" should be "True" and vice versa. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Mon Jan 22 14:20:11 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:20:11 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 01/22/2018 10:37 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > With the default mail.override_list_reply_to = False, for a message with > a List-Post: header and with the list posting address also in a Reply-To: > header, T'bird will ignore the Reply-To: header and address a "Reply" > to the From: address. > > Setting mail.override_list_reply_to = True will restore RFC compliant > behavior and address a "Reply" to the Reply-To: header address(es). With the information that you have provided I was able to test this. My findings appear to be opposite of what you have outlined, and correspond with what Hal wrote. My test message has the same address in Reply-To: and List-Post: and a different address in From:. With mail.override_list_reply_to set to true (the default), the reply went to the From: address. With mail.override_list_reply_to set to false, the reply went to the Reply-To: address. So, I think Thunderbird's new default is going to cause messages to go back to the author, ignoring the Reply-To. I can see how this could be annoying as a message author who wants messages to be directed to the mailing list, particularly if I set the Reply-To to be the mailing list. *sigh* -- Grant. . . . unix || die From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Mon Jan 22 14:20:47 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:20:47 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <3da53544-d5d2-1146-2c66-ef3b79de4e84@msapiro.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3da53544-d5d2-1146-2c66-ef3b79de4e84@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <020a8ccd-5bac-5da1-2301-130e03c62ddb@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/22/2018 12:17 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > My bad. I was confused. In my answer above, "False" should be "True" and > vice versa. ;-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 14:41:28 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:41:28 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <4950965c-b448-93c7-d18d-9f8683c315dd@msapiro.net> On 01/22/2018 11:20 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > So, I think Thunderbird's new default is going to cause messages to go > back to the author, ignoring the Reply-To. That's correct. > I can see how this could be annoying as a message author who wants > messages to be directed to the mailing list, particularly if I set the > Reply-To to be the mailing list.? *sigh* The T'bird developers view is that in these cases, you are offered a "Reply List" button and therefore, if you use "Reply" instead of "Reply List" you must want the reply to go somewhere other than the list. This of course ignores all those people who will use "Reply" or control-R out of long habit and not because they want something other than "Reply List". The real problem is the default for mail.override_list_reply_to is True and it should be False, but at least in T'bird 52.x we have an option which we didn't have when the new behavior was first introduced in T'bird 50.0. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Mon Jan 22 15:10:48 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:10:48 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <4950965c-b448-93c7-d18d-9f8683c315dd@msapiro.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4950965c-b448-93c7-d18d-9f8683c315dd@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <8cd1203d-3351-56d4-c8cf-d95c40516bf0@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/22/2018 12:41 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > That's correct. *chuckle* I guess this is one time when munging the From for DMARC reasons may help ensure that messages do go back to the list. > The T'bird developers view is that in these cases, you are offered a > "Reply List" button and therefore, if you use "Reply" instead of "Reply > List" you must want the reply to go somewhere other than the list. This > of course ignores all those people who will use "Reply" or control-R out > of long habit and not because they want something other than "Reply List". Yep, that's the logic I've read. Not that I agree with it. I will say that I frequently hit the reply list button, but I do agree that reply should have the proper default behavior, even in the presence of a List-Post header. I view this as an attempt to coddle a few people. People that I believe need some training. Instead, the rest of the masses will now have to alter their behavior because of the few. New law, nobody is allowed to drive when it's raining because John Doe is too scared to do so, thus nobody should be allowed to. *HEAVYsigh* > The real problem is the default for mail.override_list_reply_to is True > and it should be False, but at least in T'bird 52.x we have an option > which we didn't have when the new behavior was first introduced in > T'bird 50.0. Wow. How could the Thunderbird developers even fathom to introduce an RFC compliant dictated behavior /without/ giving an option to revert. *headDesk* -- Grant. . . . unix || die From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 15:47:36 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:47:36 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <8cd1203d-3351-56d4-c8cf-d95c40516bf0@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4950965c-b448-93c7-d18d-9f8683c315dd@msapiro.net> <8cd1203d-3351-56d4-c8cf-d95c40516bf0@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <5242482d-f227-fed6-b0d2-b13f2e24db70@msapiro.net> On 01/22/2018 12:10 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > Wow.? How could the Thunderbird developers even fathom to introduce an > RFC compliant dictated behavior /without/ giving an option to revert. There is a long history behind this and I agree that T'bird has not always made good decisions on this, but if you want a better understanding and have a few hours to kill, start with (created 17 years ago). Read the entire comment thread there and then those in and in . It's like a game of "telephone" to see what the original request morphed into. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From steve at pearwood.info Mon Jan 22 17:55:37 2018 From: steve at pearwood.info (Steven D'Aprano) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:55:37 +1100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <4950965c-b448-93c7-d18d-9f8683c315dd@msapiro.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4950965c-b448-93c7-d18d-9f8683c315dd@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <20180122225537.GU22500@ando.pearwood.info> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:41:28AM -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 01/22/2018 11:20 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > > > So, I think Thunderbird's new default is going to cause messages to go > > back to the author, ignoring the Reply-To. > > That's correct. > > > I can see how this could be annoying as a message author who wants > > messages to be directed to the mailing list, particularly if I set the > > Reply-To to be the mailing list.? *sigh* > > The T'bird developers view is that in these cases, you are offered a > "Reply List" button and therefore, if you use "Reply" instead of "Reply > List" you must want the reply to go somewhere other than the list. Its worse than that: what about people who intentionally set the Reply To header on *non-mailing list* emails? E.g. if I'm about to go on holiday, I might reply to a work email: "Please send replies to fred at example.com" (which, of course, business email users don't read or pay attention to) and set the Reply To to ensure that replies go to Fred. -- Steve From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Mon Jan 22 18:13:16 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:13:16 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <20180122225537.GU22500@ando.pearwood.info> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4950965c-b448-93c7-d18d-9f8683c315dd@msapiro.net> <20180122225537.GU22500@ando.pearwood.info> Message-ID: <3e1e5e0d-d63e-9f42-f9d2-10de55217bb8@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/22/2018 03:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Its worse than that: what about people who intentionally set the Reply > To header on non-mailing list emails? I believe the new behavior is only triggered when the Reply-To: and List-Post: headers match. I guess that might be a problem if the mailing list manager alters the Reply-To: header. But I think that would be the case despite of Thunderbird's recent change. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Mon Jan 22 18:13:26 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:13:26 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <20180122225537.GU22500@ando.pearwood.info> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <4950965c-b448-93c7-d18d-9f8683c315dd@msapiro.net> <20180122225537.GU22500@ando.pearwood.info> Message-ID: <1dddd753-5330-9456-da78-467969df670c@bmrb.wisc.edu> On 01/22/2018 04:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Its worse than that: what about people who intentionally set the Reply > To header on *non-mailing list* emails? Then you won't get the "reply list" option in the first place. In the basic reply-to case, the mailer *should* -- as defined by modern RFCs -- honor the reply-to header. In the case of a mailing list my options are reply to list, reply to From:, reply to Reply-To:, or any combination thereof, and I fully expect the program to read both my and the original sender's minds and Do The Right Thing(tm) with a single click. -- 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: From pshute at nuw.org.au Mon Jan 22 16:33:52 2018 From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:33:52 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> Message-ID: <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Mark Sapiro wrote: > > If the list is plain-text only, I'd be more curious how images were > > making their way through, not the reverse. > > Exactly! Perhaps I've used the wrong terminology. I mean that convert_html_to_plaintext is set to Yes. > In order to say more, we'd need to see all the content filtering settings for > the list and the emails at issue. Ideally, we'd like a raw email as sent to the > list, but even the resultant email from the list might be helpful. I've attached a screenshot of the content filtering page. Does that tell you everything you need to know? (Assuming it'll be allowed through. If not, what's the easiest way to list all the settings?) > I.e., for the ideal case, have the user mail to the list with a Bcc: to you. Then, > show us the content filtering settings and both raw emails, the list mail and > the direct Bcc:. I still have all the moderation notification emails, with the original emails attached. Can I use those to get the information you need? But before I start trying to gather together evidence, could we "fix" this problem by setting convert_html_to_plaintext to No? If so, are there any side effects of that we should know about before we try it? I'm not the owner of the list, and it wasn't my decision to set it to Yes. I'm under the impression that the owner changed it as a precaution once after the list was somehow being used to send out spam. It's my impression that in the years before I had admin access, there have been periods when html was allowed, but I have no idea of the reasons for the earlier changes. Peter Shute From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 20:08:26 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:08:26 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Message-ID: On 01/22/2018 01:33 PM, Peter Shute wrote: > > Perhaps I've used the wrong terminology. I mean that convert_html_to_plaintext is set to Yes. OK > I've attached a screenshot of the content filtering page. Does that tell you everything you need to know? (Assuming it'll be allowed through. If not, what's the easiest way to list all the settings?) It didn't go to the list, but I got it in my direct copy. For future reference, the settings are: filter_content: Yes filter_mime_types: empty pass_mime_types: multipart text/plain text/html image/jpeg image/png filter_filename_extensions: exe bat cmd com pif scr vbs cpl mpg mc4 mp3 And more not in the screenshot pass_filename_extensions: empty collapse_alternatives: Yes convert_html_to_plaintext: Yes filter_action: Discard And something like the above is the best way to report them. > I still have all the moderation notification emails, with the original emails attached. Can I use those to get the information you need? Yes, but see below. > But before I start trying to gather together evidence, could we "fix" this problem by setting convert_html_to_plaintext to No? If so, are there any side effects of that we should know about before we try it? That alone probably won't fix it. Consider a message with the following MIME structure: multipart/alternative text/plain plain text body multipart/related text/html HTML body that references images image/jpeg first image image/jpeg second image pass_mime_types will accept everything, but collapse_alternatives = Yes will replace the multipart/alternative part with the first sub-part, i.e. the text/plain part leaving only text/plain plain text body as the message to be delivered. Even a different message like multipart/related multipart/alternative text/plain plain text body text/html HTML body that references images image/jpeg first image image/jpeg second image Will result in the filtered message multipart/related text/plain plain text body image/jpeg first image image/jpeg second image with the image parts still in the delivered message, but the HTML that referenced them gone. The only time the HTML is left in the message in any form is if it's not in a multipart/alternative sub-part such as multipart/related text/html HTML body that references images image/jpeg first image image/jpeg second image but even here, the text/html part will be converted to text/plain by HTML_TO_PLAIN_TEXT_COMMAND and how the result will render will vary depending both on what that command does and the MUA that views the result. > I'm not the owner of the list, and it wasn't my decision to set it to Yes. I'm under the impression that the owner changed it as a precaution once after the list was somehow being used to send out spam. It's my impression that in the years before I had admin access, there have been periods when html was allowed, but I have no idea of the reasons for the earlier changes. You definitely want to set collapse_alternatives to No. Depending on how that works for you, you may also need to set convert_html_to_plaintext to No to get the result you want. The risk in setting convert_html_to_plaintext to No is messages with evil javascript will go to the list. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From pshute at nuw.org.au Mon Jan 22 21:10:32 2018 From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:10:32 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Message-ID: Thanks for all that. I googled collapse_alternatives, and I can see from the colour of some of the results that I've looked this up before. Given that Mac and (particularly) iPhone/iPad users are common, we probably don't have an unusual problem. Maybe I should just ask the list owner to try changing those two settings to see how it goes: collapse_alternatives=No convert_html_to_plaintext=No I wonder how much dangerous javascript in email is these days. What happens if we just change collapse_alternatives to No? > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Sapiro [mailto:mark at msapiro.net] > Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 12:08 PM > To: Peter Shute ; mailman-users at python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list > server > > On 01/22/2018 01:33 PM, Peter Shute wrote: > > > > Perhaps I've used the wrong terminology. I mean that > convert_html_to_plaintext is set to Yes. > > > OK > > > > I've attached a screenshot of the content filtering page. Does that > > tell you everything you need to know? (Assuming it'll be allowed > > through. If not, what's the easiest way to list all the settings?) > > > It didn't go to the list, but I got it in my direct copy. For future reference, the > settings are: > > filter_content: Yes > filter_mime_types: empty > pass_mime_types: > multipart > text/plain > text/html > image/jpeg > image/png > filter_filename_extensions: > exe > bat > cmd > com > pif > scr > vbs > cpl > mpg > mc4 > mp3 > And more not in the screenshot > pass_filename_extensions: empty > collapse_alternatives: Yes > convert_html_to_plaintext: Yes > filter_action: Discard > > And something like the above is the best way to report them. > > > > I still have all the moderation notification emails, with the original emails > attached. Can I use those to get the information you need? > > > Yes, but see below. > > > > But before I start trying to gather together evidence, could we "fix" this > problem by setting convert_html_to_plaintext to No? If so, are there any > side effects of that we should know about before we try it? > > > That alone probably won't fix it. Consider a message with the following MIME > structure: > > multipart/alternative > text/plain > plain text body > multipart/related > text/html > HTML body that references images > image/jpeg > first image > image/jpeg > second image > > pass_mime_types will accept everything, but collapse_alternatives = Yes will > replace the multipart/alternative part with the first sub-part, i.e. the > text/plain part leaving only > > text/plain > plain text body > > as the message to be delivered. > > Even a different message like > > multipart/related > multipart/alternative > text/plain > plain text body > text/html > HTML body that references images > image/jpeg > first image > image/jpeg > second image > > Will result in the filtered message > > multipart/related > text/plain > plain text body > image/jpeg > first image > image/jpeg > second image > > with the image parts still in the delivered message, but the HTML that > referenced them gone. > > The only time the HTML is left in the message in any form is if it's not in a > multipart/alternative sub-part such as > > multipart/related > text/html > HTML body that references images > image/jpeg > first image > image/jpeg > second image > > but even here, the text/html part will be converted to text/plain by > HTML_TO_PLAIN_TEXT_COMMAND and how the result will render will vary > depending both on what that command does and the MUA that views the > result. > > > > I'm not the owner of the list, and it wasn't my decision to set it to Yes. I'm > under the impression that the owner changed it as a precaution once after > the list was somehow being used to send out spam. It's my impression that in > the years before I had admin access, there have been periods when html > was allowed, but I have no idea of the reasons for the earlier changes. > > > You definitely want to set collapse_alternatives to No. Depending on how > that works for you, you may also need to set convert_html_to_plaintext to > No to get the result you want. > > The risk in setting convert_html_to_plaintext to No is messages with evil > javascript will go to the list. > > -- > Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, > San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 21:20:45 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:20:45 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Message-ID: <40f8a395-6d87-f938-546c-bc5d51a13678@msapiro.net> On 01/22/2018 06:10 PM, Peter Shute wrote: > > What happens if we just change collapse_alternatives to No? You can try that first. It will make a noticeable difference, but the result may still not be what you want depending on what 'lynx' or whatever you may have changed HTML_TO_PLAIN_TEXT_COMMAND to does with the HTML and how the end user MUAs handle it. It will result in the images not being removed, but the end rendering of the message may or may not be acceptable. You'll have to try it and see. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From fmouse at fmp.com Mon Jan 22 21:36:36 2018 From: fmouse at fmp.com (Lindsay Haisley) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:36:36 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Message-ID: <1516674996.94439.55.camel@fmp.com> On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 02:10 +0000, Peter Shute wrote: > Thanks for all that. I googled collapse_alternatives, and I can see > from the colour of some of the results that I've looked this up > before. > > Given that Mac and (particularly) iPhone/iPad users are common, we > probably don't have an unusual problem. Maybe I should just ask the > list owner to try changing those two settings to see how it goes: > collapse_alternatives=No > convert_html_to_plaintext=No I've been preaching for years to people that using HTML-enhanced email is a questionable practice, and on a mailing list it's even worse. There is no established standard for this usage, and graphic attachments may or may not be handled, or handled as the sender expected. On a mailing list it's a pretty sure bet that at least _some_ subscribers won't be able to see what the sender intended, so SOP on the lists here is to just strip them off. An email with _only_ an HTML MIME part is identified as spam. Smart phones have complicated the issue since in my experience smart phone MUAs are fairly brain-dead. I tell my Mailman mailing list customers that spot color, font effects (bolding, italics, etc) and simple layout are probably fine, but the use of images, either embedded or attached, is dicey. It used to be that HTML-ized emails were up to 10 times the size of plain text emails, depending on the generating MUA. This is probably still true, but bandwidth and storage capacities around the Internet have risen over the years so that this isn't the problem it used to be. -- Lindsay Haisley | "The first casualty when FMP Computer Services | war comes is truth." 512-259-1190 | http://www.fmp.com | -- Hiram W Johnson From pshute at nuw.org.au Mon Jan 22 21:56:14 2018 From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:56:14 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: <1516674996.94439.55.camel@fmp.com> References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> <1516674996.94439.55.camel@fmp.com> Message-ID: <930e7aa6968443ea98163630b6872ee8@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> I agree about html email, but it was always an uphill battle with Outlook being set to html format by default. With iPhones/iPads, there seems to not even be a choice. They seem to create plain text unless you add a photo, then they revert to html. Our list needs to allow photos, so we just have to try t deal with it. Peter Shute > -----Original Message----- > From: Mailman-Users [mailto:mailman-users- > bounces+pshute=nuw.org.au at python.org] On Behalf Of Lindsay Haisley > Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 1:37 PM > To: mailman-users at python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list > server > > On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 02:10 +0000, Peter Shute wrote: > > Thanks for all that. I googled collapse_alternatives, and I can see > > from the colour of some of the results that I've looked this up > > before. > > > > Given that Mac and (particularly) iPhone/iPad users are common, we > > probably don't have an unusual problem. Maybe I should just ask the > > list owner to try changing those two settings to see how it goes: > > collapse_alternatives=No > > convert_html_to_plaintext=No > > I've been preaching for years to people that using HTML-enhanced email is a > questionable practice, and on a mailing list it's even worse. > There is no established standard for this usage, and graphic attachments may > or may not be handled, or handled as the sender expected. On a mailing list > it's a pretty sure bet that at least _some_ subscribers won't be able to see > what the sender intended, so SOP on the lists here is to just strip them off. > An email with _only_ an HTML MIME part is identified as spam. > > Smart phones have complicated the issue since in my experience smart > phone MUAs are fairly brain-dead. > > I tell my Mailman mailing list customers that spot color, font effects (bolding, > italics, etc) and simple layout are probably fine, but the use of images, either > embedded or attached, is dicey. > > It used to be that HTML-ized emails were up to 10 times the size of plain text > emails, depending on the generating MUA. This is probably still true, but > bandwidth and storage capacities around the Internet have risen over the > years so that this isn't the problem it used to be. > > -- > Lindsay Haisley | "The first casualty when > FMP Computer Services | war comes is truth." > 512-259-1190 | > http://www.fmp.com | -- Hiram W Johnson > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 pshute at nuw.org.au Mon Jan 22 21:58:02 2018 From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:58:02 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: <40f8a395-6d87-f938-546c-bc5d51a13678@msapiro.net> References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> <40f8a395-6d87-f938-546c-bc5d51a13678@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <4eca16509f8243829f15f5c4a07e975e@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Lynx? If you mean some kind of customisation, I doubt there's any. Peter Shute > -----Original Message----- > From: Mailman-Users [mailto:mailman-users- > bounces+pshute=nuw.org.au at python.org] On Behalf Of Mark Sapiro > Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 1:21 PM > To: mailman-users at python.org > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list > server > > On 01/22/2018 06:10 PM, Peter Shute wrote: > > > > What happens if we just change collapse_alternatives to No? > > > You can try that first. It will make a noticeable difference, but the result may > still not be what you want depending on what 'lynx' or whatever you may > have changed HTML_TO_PLAIN_TEXT_COMMAND to does with the HTML > and how the end user MUAs handle it. > > It will result in the images not being removed, but the end rendering of the > message may or may not be acceptable. You'll have to try it and see. > > -- > Mark Sapiro 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 mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 22 22:40:06 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:40:06 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: <4eca16509f8243829f15f5c4a07e975e@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> <40f8a395-6d87-f938-546c-bc5d51a13678@msapiro.net> <4eca16509f8243829f15f5c4a07e975e@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Message-ID: <8990a58f-5013-5fd9-be1b-7718a9b0680a@msapiro.net> On 01/22/2018 06:58 PM, Peter Shute wrote: > Lynx? If you mean some kind of customisation, I doubt there's any. I mean the default conversion from HTML to plain text is done by the command /usr/bin/lynx -dump %(filename)s On all the mailman 2.1 installations that I manage, this is changed to /usr/bin/links -dump %(filename)s or /usr/bin/elinks -dump %(filename)s because I like the output from (e)links better although it's very similar. It just has less extraneous white space. Both (e)links and lynx deal with URLs by displaying the text along with a reference to a footnote containing the actual URL. I don't know how they deal with an tag referencing an included image by Content-ID, but whatever they do may or may not be satisfactory in your situation. You just have to try it and see. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From attila at kinali.ch Tue Jan 23 08:59:57 2018 From: attila at kinali.ch (Attila Kinali) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:59:57 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mailman not creating archives In-Reply-To: <65e29027-32e3-b6aa-933f-d582c3185462@msapiro.net> References: <20180122141208.32b3ca61cfa87cdc636cc467@kinali.ch> <65e29027-32e3-b6aa-933f-d582c3185462@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <20180123145957.2e60a64369936af16d7898b7@kinali.ch> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:00:15 -0800 Mark Sapiro wrote: > Have you set ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX in mm_cfg.py (or changed it in Defaults.py) > or possibly set PUBLIC_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER. No, the settings are the default as they come with the distro. >From my Defaults.py: # Are archives on or off by default? DEFAULT_ARCHIVE = On # Are archives public or private by default? # 0=public, 1=private DEFAULT_ARCHIVE_PRIVATE = 0 # ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX #-1 - do not do any archiving # 0 - do not archive to mbox, use builtin mailman html archiving only # 1 - do not use builtin mailman html archiving, archive to mbox only # 2 - archive to both mbox and builtin mailman html archiving. # See the settings below for PUBLIC_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER and # PRIVATE_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER which can be used to replace mailman's # builtin html archiving with an external archiver. The flat mail # mbox file can be useful for searching, and is another way to # interface external archivers, etc. ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX = 2 # 0 - yearly # 1 - monthly # 2 - quarterly # 3 - weekly # 4 - daily DEFAULT_ARCHIVE_VOLUME_FREQUENCY = 1 None of these are overwritten in mm_cfg.py. Attila Kinali -- It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. All the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world is of no use without that foundation. -- Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 23 11:47:56 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:47:56 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mailman not creating archives In-Reply-To: <20180123145957.2e60a64369936af16d7898b7@kinali.ch> References: <20180122141208.32b3ca61cfa87cdc636cc467@kinali.ch> <65e29027-32e3-b6aa-933f-d582c3185462@msapiro.net> <20180123145957.2e60a64369936af16d7898b7@kinali.ch> Message-ID: <830b9f05-4fa2-16af-1595-cd7f81e04f55@msapiro.net> On 01/23/2018 05:59 AM, Attila Kinali wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:00:15 -0800 > Mark Sapiro wrote: > >> Have you set ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX in mm_cfg.py (or changed it in Defaults.py) >> or possibly set PUBLIC_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER. > > No, the settings are the default as they come with the distro. I know your OP said there's nothing in the logs, but have you specifically looked at Mailman's 'error' and 'qrunner' logs. I suspect the issue may be ArchRunner not running. If so, there will be a lot of files in /var/lib/mailman/qfiles/archive, there may be files in /var/lib/mailman/qfiles/shunt, and there should be messages in both Mailman's 'error' and 'qrunner' logs from the time ArchRunner died. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Wed Jan 24 03:50:56 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:50:56 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> I'd appreciate if those who have strong opinions on this would take a look at the analysis below and tell me if I'm missing something. If not, maybe I'll write up a BCP (non-standards-track RFC[1]) so it's on record. This proposal actually has a history going back to about 2005. I didn't do anything about it because I got a lot of pushback from MUA writers, and writing RFCs is worse than writing PEPs (Pythonistas are either sane or go away soon, not so for IETF mailing lists ;-). But if its still an issue maybe it's worth the effort. Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users writes: > What I find interesting is that mail.override_list_reply_to is set to > True by default in my copy of Thunderbird, 52.5.0. I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply": 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To. 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.) Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are some issues with this algorithm in practice: 1. Some lists should not encourage reply-to-list (eg, for privacy reasons). This can be worked around by omitting List-Post, or solved by additional protocol so that the list sets a header field saying "don't automatically reply here just because there's a List-Post. Given how conservative MUA writers are, I'd say "KISS" for these, and make users cut-n-paste. Most of the time a reply-to-list here is probably thread hijacking anyway. 2. Some users will want to override the algorithm and reply specifically to list or author. MUAs should provide buttons or menu items for these infrequently used options. 3. Your favorite list munges Reply-To. Nothing changes here, people are still going to be embarrassed by sending remarks intended to be private to a broad audience, and in some configurations of Mailman the original Reply-To or the From will get dupes. At least you can override with a reply-to-author function. I don't understand what Thunderbird thought they were doing. Steve Footnotes: [1] MUA UI best practices like this technically don't have anything to do with Internet protocol semantics. From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Wed Jan 24 03:55:33 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:55:33 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Photos from Macs getting removed by list server In-Reply-To: References: <00D7E925-AE50-4D60-8C4A-BB29F1F7D177@nuw.org.au> <6efd9249e2b2442d969dd8c9dc4f9216@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Message-ID: <23144.18949.9172.116925@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Peter Shute writes: > I wonder how much dangerous javascript in email is these days. The #infosec and #bitcoin tweeps I follow are all a-twitter about javascript that mines bitcoins, which is pretty seriously energy- and cpu-intensive. (They have opinions at opposite poles though. :-) It really depends on your list, though. If very little spam (by that I mean less than one per quarter) gets through, and you don't have Javascript tricksters among the posters, I don't see why this would be a major worry. Your paranoia level is your choice, though, and it is less risky if you have a few people with skills who can identify problematic mail and tell you about it. Steve From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Wed Jan 24 13:02:48 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:02:48 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: On 01/24/2018 01:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I'd appreciate if those who have strong opinions on this would take a > look at the analysis below and tell me if I'm missing something. If not, > maybe I'll write up a BCP (non-standards-track RFC[1]) so it's on record. See my comments inline below. > This proposal actually has a history going back to about 2005. I didn't > do anything about it because I got a lot of pushback from MUA writers, > and writing RFCs is worse than writing PEPs (Pythonistas are either sane > or go away soon, not so for IETF mailing lists . But if its still an > issue maybe it's worth the effort. > > I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply": I doubt that's the case. > 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To. Baring other influences, this is where the author or the message sender (if it's someone other than the author) wants replies to go to. > 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. I don't think that it's appropriate to always prefer the List-Post over the From ~> Reply-To. MUAs (are starting to) have separate functions for reply to From / Reply-To vs reply to list. I can see a case for a broadcast mailing list that's open for all members to post to where neither From nor Reply-To munging takes place. The author can send from one address (From) and want replies to go elsewhere (Reply-To) while the MLM adds a List-Post header to comply with other standards. I feel like a reply to such a message should go to the Reply-To (as set by the author) and not the List-Post as set by the MLM. Reply-List in such a case is a distinctly different operation. I can also see a case where a message author might choose to (dynamically) set the Reply-To to something like "Reply-To: Please reply to the Mailman-Users mailing list. " > 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the message > violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.) ?\_(?)_/? Sounds like the classic case of "undefined behavior" to me. > Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this > is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are > some issues with this algorithm in practice: I disagree for a number of reasons. Some of which are outlined above. > 1. Some lists should not encourage reply-to-list (eg, for privacy > reasons). This can be worked around by omitting List-Post, or solved > by additional protocol so that the list sets a header field saying > "don't automatically reply here just because there's a List-Post. > Given how conservative MUA writers are, I'd say "KISS" for these, > and make users cut-n-paste. Most of the time a reply-to-list here is > probably thread hijacking anyway. I see an opportunity for a "List-Reply-To" header that could indicate if /replies/ should go to the list (List-Post) or the author (Reply-To|From). I suppose that it could also be possible to specify an alternate address for replies to go to, i.e. for thread tracking or something like that. This would still leave us in the situation where MUAs need to differentiate between a generic Reply and a Reply-to-List behavior. Plus the associated action for the reply keyboard sequence. I feel like this is /mostly/ a user education issue. There may be some room for UI / UX improvement. Ultimately it's up to the MTA to do what the user wans done. Consider the following: From: Author To: List Reply-To: Author List-Post: List Where should replies to the author go to? Where should replies to the list go to? Where should the (undefined) "reply" go to? I don't think that it's likely for the MTA to automagically know what needs to be done. > 2. Some users will want to override the algorithm and reply specifically > to list or author. MUAs should provide buttons or menu items for these > infrequently used options. I think it is wrong for us to ascribe frequency of use for other users. Just because I do something some way does not mean that others do so with the same frequency, or even the same thing. I personally use Reply List more than I use Reply (Author [From|Reply-To]). > 3. Your favorite list munges Reply-To. Nothing changes here, people are > still going to be embarrassed by sending remarks intended to be private > to a broad audience, and in some configurations of Mailman the original > Reply-To or the From will get dupes. At least you can override with a > reply-to-author function. I feel like this is a user education issue. Sadly, pain of embarrassment is a good teacher. > I don't understand what Thunderbird thought they were doing. I think they were trying to apply a technological solution to what I believe is fundamentally a user education issue. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Wed Jan 24 19:48:58 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:48:58 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: On 01/24/2018 10:40 AM, Jordan Brown wrote: > On 1/24/2018 12:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply": >> >> 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To. >> 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. >> 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the >> message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.) >> >> Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this >> is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are >> some issues with this algorithm in practice: > > If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the result > that I would want.? I would want Reply to go to the author. As a list > member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to the > author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs Reply to > the list.? (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I was > participating in for this reason.) I think that the difference of Reply vs Reply-List applies to your statement. You are entitled to your opinion of how a mailing list should operate and free to configure any mailing lists you manage accordingly. I prefer that discussion mailing lists direct replies to the mailing list so that other subscribers are aware of and can participate in the discussions. > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author, > the list, and any other To or CC destinations.? I simply can't > understand any other answer.? I don't understand why anybody feels a > need for "Reply List". Lack of understanding does not mean that other ways are invalid. See my comment above for why I want replies to my message to /discussion/ lists to go to the list. In fact, I really dislike receiving the CC when messages are going to the list that I'm subscribed to. > How that translates into headers that the mailing list software > generates, shrug.? Yes, the mailing list software could always force in > a Reply-To: to get the semantics that I want, but why should it > add that noise?? Or the mailing list software could omit List-Post, > which I suppose would be fine too (since I don't understand why you > would want it). I thought the List-Post: header was more informational about how to post messages to the mailing list. - I thought MUAs started offering an option to use the List-Post header to purposefully send replies to the list instead of the author (From:|Reply-To:). > Before DMARC munging, I could have (mis)configured my MUA to ignore > Reply-To and mostly gotten the right semantics even on an evil > Reply-To: list.? With DMARC munging that's no longer an option; I > need Reply-To: on DMARC-munged lists. How can you tell the difference between me setting the Reply-To: to be the Mailman Users mailing list (which I have done for this email) and the mailing list manager doing it? What do you do in these cases? Not sending the reply to the list is contrary to my desires (evident by me setting the Reply-To:) or the mailing list owners desires if they choose to munge the reply. And yes, the mailing list is going to munge the From for DMARC reasons. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Wed Jan 24 22:22:09 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:22:09 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1ff0e19e-63c1-270c-086b-7fccc19946fc@jordan.maileater.net> On 1/24/2018 12:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I think there's an obvious algorithm for "smart single reply": > > 1. If there is a Reply-To, address the message to Reply-To. > 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. > 3. Else address the message to From. (If there's no From, the > message violates the most basic RFCs so all bets are off.) > > Assuming that no lists munge Reply-To, I think you'll agree that this > is what you want 90% of the time (conservative estimate). There are > some issues with this algorithm in practice: If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the result that I would want.? I would want Reply to go to the author.? As a list member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to the author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs Reply to the list.? (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I was participating in for this reason.) I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author, the list, and any other To or CC destinations.? I simply can't understand any other answer.? I don't understand why anybody feels a need for "Reply List". How that translates into headers that the mailing list software generates, shrug.? Yes, the mailing list software could always force in a Reply-To: to get the semantics that I want, but why should it add that noise?? Or the mailing list software could omit List-Post, which I suppose would be fine too (since I don't understand why you would want it). Before DMARC munging, I could have (mis)configured my MUA to ignore Reply-To and mostly gotten the right semantics even on an evil Reply-To: list.? With DMARC munging that's no longer an option; I need Reply-To: on DMARC-munged lists. From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Wed Jan 24 23:16:21 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 20:16:21 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> On 1/24/2018 4:48 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 01/24/2018 10:40 AM, Jordan Brown wrote: >> If a message had only List-Post and From, that wouldn't get the >> result that I would want.? I would want Reply to go to the author. As >> a list member, I consider it an absolute requirement that Reply go to >> the author and only to the author; I boycott any list that directs >> Reply to the list.? (I've dropped off the "staff" list for an event I >> was participating in for this reason.) > > I think that the difference of Reply vs Reply-List applies to your > statement. I don't understand this statement.? Or, I don't understand how it disagrees with what I said.? I don't really care whether the MUA has a "Reply List" button that does something list-specific.? "Reply" should go to the author; "Reply All" should go to all of the original recipients. > You are entitled to your opinion of how a mailing list should operate > and free to configure any mailing lists you manage accordingly. Of course, and I'm free to participate or not participate in mailing lists based on their policies. And although I normally try to resist this argument (and don't always succeed), somebody explicitly suggested trying to define a best practice... and if there's ever a time to say what one thinks the best practice should be, that's it. >> I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the >> author, the list, and any other To or CC destinations.? I simply >> can't understand any other answer.? I don't understand why anybody >> feels a need for "Reply List". > > Lack of understanding does not mean that other ways are invalid. > > See my comment above for why I want replies to my message to > /discussion/ lists to go to the list. Sure.? That's what "Reply All" means.? Like you said, it's a matter of user education :-) Let's look at a couple of e-mail messages. (And not bothering to put in real addresses, or the headers that the mailing list might magically add.) From: Sam To: Joe, Dave, Jordan If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam.? If I hit Reply All, the message goes to Sam, Joe, and Dave.? (And maybe, depending on my MUA, to me too.) Any controversy there? Now the second message: From: Sam To: MailingList In the scheme I prefer:? If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam.? If I hit Reply All, the message goes to Sam and the mailing list.? This seems totally consistent with the behavior above. In the scheme you prefer (as I understand it):? If I hit Reply, the message goes to the mailing list.? If I hit Reply All, the message goes to the mailing list.? There's no way to get the message to go just to Sam (absent cutting and pasting).? If Sam isn't on the mailing list, he won't even get a copy.? But most importantly, the behavior is not consistent with the non-mailing-list behavior above. Now another message: From: Sam To: MailingList, Joe, Dave, Jordan In my scheme, again, Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to everybody.? Consistent with the behavior above. In your scheme, Reply goes to ... ? Well, it depends.? If this is the copy of the message that I got through the mailing list, Reply will go to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave.? If, on the other hand, this is the copy that I got directly, Reply will go to Sam.? Reply All goes to... if it's the mailing list copy, it goes to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave; if it's the direct copy, then Sam, the mailing list, Joe, and Dave.? For the two replies based on the mailing list copy, the message won't go to Sam unless he's on the mailing list. And another: From: Sam To: MailingListA, MailingListB For fun, let's assume that I'm on both mailing lists. My scheme:? Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to Sam and both mailing lists.? Consistent with the behavior above. Your scheme:? Reply:? If this is the copy I got through list A, it goes to list A; if it's the copy I got through list B, it goes to list B.? Reply All:? goes to both mailing lists.? Only goes to Sam if he's on one of the mailing lists. Now, when you consider all of those cases, which scheme is simpler and easier to understand?? Which is less likely to have messages going to unexpected groups of people, when you spend all day responding to a mix of all of the types? And yes, those are all very real cases.? I expect that if I go through my work e-mail for the last day I'll find examples of each, and I would be virtually certain if I looked through a week.? (And that includes the "Sam isn't a member of the mailing list" variants; those are *very* common.) > In fact, I really dislike receiving the CC when messages are going to > the list that I'm subscribed to. Yes, that's a nuisance, but I think it's not nearly as bad as the alternatives.? It costs me a tap of the Delete key; it doesn't send my private criticism of the author to his boss. What's really needed there is a MUA that hides duplicates, though that's tricky when mailing list software munges the message and the headers. >> Before DMARC munging, I could have (mis)configured my MUA to ignore >> Reply-To and mostly gotten the right semantics even on an evil >> Reply-To: list.? With DMARC munging that's no longer an option; >> I need Reply-To: on DMARC-munged lists. > > How can you tell the difference between me setting the Reply-To: to be > the Mailman Users mailing list (which I have done for this email) and > the mailing list manager doing it?? What do you do in these cases?? > Not sending the reply to the list is contrary to my desires (evident > by me setting the Reply-To:) or the mailing list owners desires if > they choose to munge the reply.? And yes, the mailing list is going to > munge the From for DMARC reasons. If you, the author, really want replies that I intend to be private going to the mailing list, yes, of course you can set Reply-To... and the mailing list software should leave that alone. I'm not going to be happy with you when I embarrass both of us by using the reply habits that work for non-mailing-list mail to reply privately, and it goes to a group.? You might not be happy with me either, but you'll get precisely zero sympathy from me; you set it up that way. Somebody - whether it's you as the author, or the mailing list software - who sets Reply-To to point to the mailing list, is deliberately causing *my* replies to go to someplace that I didn't want them to go to, that I didn't expect them to go to based on all of my habits for non-mailing-list mail (and the majority of mailing-list mail). *You* shouldn't be saying where *my* reply goes. From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Thu Jan 25 00:19:10 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:19:10 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> Message-ID: <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/24/2018 09:16 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: > I don't understand this statement. Or, I don't understand how it > disagrees with what I said. I don't really care whether the MUA has a > "Reply List" button that does something list-specific. "Reply" should > go to the author; "Reply All" should go to all of the original recipients. It's been a long day, let's just move past. > Of course, and I'm free to participate or not participate in mailing > lists based on their policies. And although I normally try to resist > this argument (and don't always succeed), somebody explicitly suggested > trying to define a best practice... and if there's ever a time to say > what one thinks the best practice should be, that's it. That logic seems reasonable to me. > Sure. That's what "Reply All" means. Like you said, it's a matter of > user education There is a distinct difference in replying to all and replying to the list. Namely the list is a subset of all. > Let's look at a couple of e-mail messages. (And not bothering to put in > real addresses, or the headers that the mailing list might magically add.) > > From: Sam > To: Joe, Dave, Jordan > > If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam. If I hit Reply All, the message > goes to Sam, Joe, and Dave. (And maybe, depending on my MUA, to me too.) > > Any controversy there? Nope. > Now the second message: > > From: Sam > To: MailingList > > In the scheme I prefer: If I hit Reply, the message goes to Sam. > If I hit Reply All, the message goes to Sam and the mailing list. > This seems totally consistent with the behavior above. Sure. > In the scheme you prefer (as I understand it): If I hit Reply, the > message goes to the mailing list. If I hit Reply All, the message goes > to the mailing list. Using the pseudo headers you provided, hitting Reply would go back to Sam. If there was a Reply-To header, and it was set to the mailing list, the message would go to the mailing list. > There's no way to get the message to go just to Sam (absent cutting > and pasting). If Sam isn't on the mailing list, he won't even get > a copy. Based on how I think /discussion/ mailing lists /should/ operate, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'd go so far as to say that /discussion/ mailing lists could remove any and all From / Reply-To / To / Sender / et al headers from the message. - I think the message that I receive as a mailing list subscriber /should/ be /from/ /the/ /list/. (I'm distinctly ignoring any copy that comes to me as a To / CC / BCC as I tend to ignore them and only act on the copy from the mailing list.) I view the mailing list as an entity that is originating the copy that I receive. As such, my replies should go back to said entity. Note: This is my opinion of /discussion/ mailing lists. - Broadcast lists (a.k.a. expansion lists) are different and should make no modification to the message content at all. > But most importantly, the behavior is not consistent with the > non-mailing-list behavior above. I think this behavior is perfectly consistent with my view of /discussion/ mailing lists. > Now another message: > > From: Sam > To: MailingList, Joe, Dave, Jordan > > In my scheme, again, Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to everybody. > Consistent with the behavior above. > > In your scheme, Reply goes to ... ? Well, it depends. If this is the > copy of the message that I got through the mailing list, Reply will go > to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave. It will depend on how the mailing list is configured. In my ideal scenario for a /discussion/ mailing list, the reply would /only/ go to the mailing list. > If, on the other hand, this is the copy that I got directly, Reply will > go to Sam. Reply All goes to... if it's the mailing list copy, it goes > to the mailing list, Joe, and Dave; if it's the direct copy, then Sam, > the mailing list, Joe, and Dave. For the two replies based on the mailing > list copy, the message won't go to Sam unless he's on the mailing list. I feel sorry for Sam and think that he should subscribe to the mailing list. But s/he has that option. > And another: > > From: Sam > To: MailingListA, MailingListB > > For fun, let's assume that I'm on both mailing lists. Okay. > My scheme: Reply goes to Sam; Reply All goes to Sam and both mailing > lists. Consistent with the behavior above. > > Your scheme: Reply: If this is the copy I got through list A, it goes > to list A; if it's the copy I got through list B, it goes to list B. > Reply All: goes to both mailing lists. Only goes to Sam if he's on > one of the mailing lists. Sure. > Now, when you consider all of those cases, which scheme is simpler and > easier to understand? Which is less likely to have messages going to > unexpected groups of people, when you spend all day responding to a mix > of all of the types? I understand your logic. It seems reasonable enough. I still disagree with it. - By the way the sun is purple. ;-) We can agree to disagree. > And yes, those are all very real cases. I expect that if I go through my > work e-mail for the last day I'll find examples of each, and I would be > virtually certain if I looked through a week. (And that includes the "Sam > isn't a member of the mailing list" variants; those are *very* common.) I don't doubt what you're saying. I do question how many of those are /discussion/ mailing lists like I've outlined above. > Yes, that's a nuisance, but I think it's not nearly as bad as the > alternatives. It costs me a tap of the Delete key; it doesn't send my > private criticism of the author to his boss. Sure. > What's really needed there is a MUA that hides duplicates, though that's > tricky when mailing list software munges the message and the headers. Please clarify what is duplicated that you'd like to see hidden? > If you, the author, really want replies that I intend to be private > going to the mailing list, yes, of course you can set Reply-To... and > the mailing list software should leave that alone. I hear and understand what you're saying. I think that at least a tiny bit of responsibility is on you to check the address that the message is going to. It may be 1%, or more, or less, but I do believe that you as a sender have a responsibility to check where you are sending the email to. It's not a driver's fault if a driver from the oncoming lane swerves into the first driver's lane. But it is the first driver's responsibility to try to avoid the obstacles that have suddenly appeared in front of him / her, or at least make an effort to do so. > I'm not going to be happy with you when I embarrass both of us by using > the reply habits that work for non-mailing-list mail to reply privately, > and it goes to a group. You might not be happy with me either, but > you'll get precisely zero sympathy from me; you set it up that way. I think that's fair. > Somebody - whether it's you as the author, or the mailing list software - > who sets Reply-To to point to the mailing list, is deliberately causing > *my* replies to go to someplace that I didn't want them to go to, that I > didn't expect them to go to based on all of my habits for non-mailing-list > mail (and the majority of mailing-list mail). I'm not setting where the messages /do/ go. I'm setting where I would /like/ the messages to go. You, as the reply author are responsible for what your MUA sends. > *You* shouldn't be saying where *my* reply goes. I'm /not/ saying where your reply /does/ go. I'm saying where I would /like/ it to go. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Thu Jan 25 11:12:00 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:12:00 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: On 2018-01-24 02:50, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I'd appreciate if those who have strong opinions on this would take a > look at the analysis below and tell me if I'm missing something. While I don't have a strong opinion, getting two copes of the same message (usual "reply all") behaviour is suboptimal. I've the "please CC me when replying to list" .sig for lists where people do it a lot -- not that I've been on many lately. The BBS/webforum convention is "private message" that may or may not come with "PM sent" note in the discussion thread. I think that's the reasonable way of doing it and that a MUA, when replying to a ML post, should give the user 2 options: "reply to list" and "reply off-list". Since the list should rewrite the From header for DKIMARC, these would correspond to list-post/from and reply-to resp. Dima From rachelbushman13 at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 11:32:34 2018 From: rachelbushman13 at gmail.com (rachelbushman13 at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Creating new list on web interface Message-ID: <001c01d395fa$1af6f070$50e4d150$@gmail.com> Hi, I am new to this so sorry if this is a dumb question. I could not seem to find any discussions online of people have this same problem. I am trying to create a new list using the web interface, however when I go to mydomain/mailman/create, it just takes me to my website (of the same domain name) and gives me a 404 page not found error. What am I doing wrong? From mark at msapiro.net Thu Jan 25 13:39:05 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:39:05 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Creating new list on web interface In-Reply-To: <001c01d395fa$1af6f070$50e4d150$@gmail.com> References: <001c01d395fa$1af6f070$50e4d150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 01/25/2018 08:32 AM, rachelbushman13 at gmail.com wrote: > > I am trying to create a new list using the web interface, however when I go > to mydomain/mailman/create, it just takes me to my website (of the same > domain name) and gives me a 404 page not found error. Is this a Mailman installation that currently works. If so, is a URL for a list admin UI mydomain/mailman/admin/LIST_NAME? Whatever the URL that works to admin a list is, if you replace the 'admin/LIST_NAME' part with 'create' and you get a 404, there is something wrong with the installation. If none of these URLs work, see . If by chance this is a hosted cPanel installation, in cPanel you are supposed to create lists via the cPanel control panel, not via the Mailman web UI. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From attila at kinali.ch Thu Jan 25 14:05:54 2018 From: attila at kinali.ch (Attila Kinali) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:05:54 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] mailman not creating archives In-Reply-To: <830b9f05-4fa2-16af-1595-cd7f81e04f55@msapiro.net> References: <20180122141208.32b3ca61cfa87cdc636cc467@kinali.ch> <65e29027-32e3-b6aa-933f-d582c3185462@msapiro.net> <20180123145957.2e60a64369936af16d7898b7@kinali.ch> <830b9f05-4fa2-16af-1595-cd7f81e04f55@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <20180125200554.b4f78bbf29e57185e32a1dfb@kinali.ch> On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:47:56 -0800 Mark Sapiro wrote: > I know your OP said there's nothing in the logs, but have you > specifically looked at Mailman's 'error' and 'qrunner' logs. Ok... this is embarrassing... There are permission errors there... As I said... PEBCAK :-( I suppose it should work now Attila Kinali -- The bad part of Zurich is where the degenerates throw DARK chocolate at you. From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Fri Jan 26 23:41:57 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 20:41:57 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 1/24/2018 9:19 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > I understand your logic.? It seems reasonable enough.? I still > disagree with it.? -? By the way the sun is purple.? ;-)? We can agree > to disagree. I think that's probably the end result :-) >> And yes, those are all very real cases.? I expect that if I go >> through my work e-mail for the last day I'll find examples of each, >> and I would be virtually certain if I looked through a week.? (And >> that includes the "Sam isn't a member of the mailing list" variants; >> those are *very* common.) > > I don't doubt what you're saying. > > I do question how many of those are /discussion/ mailing lists like > I've outlined above. Eh.? Most of them have discussion occurring on them.? Since they are *not* configured to set Reply-To to the list (thank goodness), I guess you could say that by definition they are not "discussion lists", but I think that would be kind of an unnatural definition. > I feel sorry for Sam and think that he should subscribe to the mailing > list.? But s/he has that option. Might not have the option, or want to.? He sent a question to my team (and we might discuss the question and the answer), but that doesn't make him a member of my team. >> What's really needed there is a MUA that hides duplicates, though >> that's tricky when mailing list software munges the message and the >> headers. > Please clarify what is duplicated that you'd like to see hidden? You were complaining that in some list configurations you will tend to get multiple copies of a message - one directly to you, and one via the list. I was suggesting that one way to address that complaint would be for your mail client to detect the duplication and hide the duplicate copies. > I hear and understand what you're saying.? I think that at least a > tiny bit of responsibility is on you to check the address that the > message is going to.? It may be 1%, or more, or less, but I do believe > that you as a sender have a responsibility to check where you are > sending the email to. Maybe in theory, but that's a pretty significant mental processing load to add to support maybe one in a thousand (if that many) replies that I send.? It's especially bad in the non-trivial cases where there's more than one recipient, so "Reply All" will contain a list that won't be formed the way that it is "usually" formed. And observed reality is that people, even experienced people, get it wrong on a regular basis. > I'm /not/ saying where your reply /does/ go.? I'm saying where I would > /like/ it to go. Mostly, I'd say that you've already said that by including the mailing list in the To or CC list.? When I reply to a message with multiple recipients (however those recipients might be specified), I'd say that the normal convention is to include all of them in any ongoing discussion by hitting Reply All.? If you wanted your message to go to the mailing list but didn't want replies to go there, you could have put the mailing list into the BCC.? (And people do occasionally do that, to drag a discussion from one mailing list to another, or to shotgun a broad set of destinations for the initial query but focus discussion in one place.) From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Sun Jan 28 23:40:37 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:40:37 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users writes: > On 01/24/2018 01:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > 2. Else if there is a List-Post, address the message to List-Post. > > I don't think that it's appropriate to always prefer the List-Post over > the From ~> Reply-To. OK. But I'm not saying "always." I'm saying that this would DTRT for me a very large proportion of the time, and for AOLers, about 100% of the time to 6 sigmas. Others have used the word "right". From the point of view of the Internet, there's no "right" *off* the Internet, and MUAs are off the Internet. The question is *desired* behavior, and whether that desired behavior can be achieved efficiently (little information to remember, few keystrokes, etc) and mnemonically for a given set of users who desire that behavior. In the end it's an empirical question. Unfortunately it's hard to get information about the target population (it's not Mutt users!) without getting the algorithm into one of the big MUAs. > MUAs (are starting to) have separate functions for reply to From / > Reply-To vs reply to list. Mutt and Gnus have had that for as long as I can remember. But there's always a huge constituency for a one-button do-what-I-mean function. "It's obvious what I want, why doesn't this stupid software get it?" ;-) I think this algorithm provides that function. Taken out of context because I have no idea what this means: > the MLM adds a List-Post header to comply with other standards. Where is List-Post a conformance issue? You add it if you want to inform people and MUAs where to post, and you don't if you don't. I'm saying we can exploit a high correlation between "availability" of posting to the list (the RFC semantics of List-Post) and a desire to direct discussion (ie, replies) to the list. > I feel like a reply to such a message [with Reply-To set] should go > to the Reply-To (as set by the author) and not the List-Post as set > by the MLM. It does under this algorithm. I'm not sure what you're talking about? > I can also see a case where a message author might choose to > (dynamically) set the Reply-To to something like "Reply-To: Please > reply to the Mailman-Users mailing list. " Again, that's where it will go under this algorithm, absent a decision by the replying user to use a different function. > I disagree for a number of reasons. Some of which are outlined > above. Some of them seem to be misunderstanding of the effect of the algorithm, though? > I see an opportunity for a "List-Reply-To" header that could > indicate if /replies/ should go to the list (List-Post) or the > author (Reply-To|From). I suppose that it could also be possible > to specify an alternate address for replies to go to, i.e. for > thread tracking or something like that. That's another can of worms. My older proposal had the literal strings "author" and "list" as the options, but alternate addresses are extremely rare in my experience. Except in the case of cross-posting, where I feel that (1) cross-posting is generally extremely deprecated and doesn't happen all that much, (2) Mail-Followup-To is widely respected even though it's not a standard for mail, and (3) Reply-To is good enough, though not optimal. > This would still leave us in the situation where MUAs need to > differentiate between a generic Reply and a Reply-to-List behavior. > Plus the associated action for the reply keyboard sequence. I'm not suggesting otherwise. > I feel like this is /mostly/ a user education issue. It has been a user education issue for 40 years in my experience, though. At some point we need to accept that users are ineducable. > There may be some room for UI / UX improvement. Ultimately it's up > to the MTA to do what the user wans done. Consider the following: > > From: Author > To: List > Reply-To: Author > List-Post: List > > Where should replies to the author go to? Where should replies to the > list go to? Where should the (undefined) "reply" go to? I'm suggesting that there should be four functions (reply to author, reply to list, reply to all, and "smart" reply). I suspect that for a lot of users, "smart" reply will be all they *ever* use. This may embarrass them occasionally on some lists, but there's nothing we can do about that. If muscle memory for using Reply All on list traffic is strong, you're in the same danger. At least with "smart reply" the list can omit List-Post (or set List-Reply-To to author, if that ever becomes available). > I don't think that it's likely for the MTA to automagically know what > needs to be done. Automagically? No. With high probability? I believe yes. > I think it is wrong for us to ascribe frequency of use for other > users. Taken seriously that would mean you believe that UI/UX design is impossible. You actually deny you believe that, and I can't go down that road. Most users are not willing to design their own UI. > Just because I do something some way does not mean that others do so > with the same frequency, or even the same thing. If I thought this was just me, I wouldn't have posted. I've been observing the concerns of mailing list owners for two decades, and I believe that if this algorithm were used in all major MUAs, there would be no demand for Reply-To munging. > I personally use Reply List more than I use Reply (Author > [From|Reply-To]). Then this algorithm would likely allow you to use the same UI gesture (keystroke, GUI botton) most of the time. > I feel like this is a user education issue. Sadly, pain of > embarrassment is a good teacher. Unfortunately, I suspect that most list posts that are regretted later were sent with malice aforethought, not inadvertantly. So I don't think there'd be much reinforcement. And inadvertant posts typically have collateral damage. I think that would be reduced. > > I don't understand what Thunderbird thought they were doing. > > I think they were trying to apply a technological solution to what I > believe is fundamentally a user education issue. I don't think there's a technological *solution*. Cf. my belief about the wrongness of saying "right". ;-) I do think there's a simpler UI that does what users want very often. I believe that many users think of mailing lists as fundamentally different from personal email, and they would like their MUAs to distinguish automatically. This algorithm, I believe, would do a pretty good job of that. From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Sun Jan 28 23:43:27 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:43:27 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Jordan Brown writes: > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author, > the list, and any other To or CC destinations.? I simply can't > understand any other answer.? I don't understand why anybody feels a > need for "Reply List". Your preference is noted, but you are definitely in a minority of those whose opinions I've seen over the decades. Even those who use Reply and Reply All as you do (I do on this list, for example), usually have considered it suboptimal. The preferences of list owners also should be respected, to the extent that replying users don't care. The prevalence of reply-to-munging says that they (or perhaps a majority of their subscribers) want replies to automatically go to the list. From chip at aresti.com Mon Jan 29 12:14:29 2018 From: chip at aresti.com (Chip Davis) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:14:29 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: I am loathe to weigh in on this architectural design discussion, but it seems to ignore the PEBCAK effect. I admin about a dozen _discussion_ Mailman lists as a mitzvah for various organizations I'm fond of, none of which are well-populated with computer scientists. Exhibit A is the number of subscribers who have free email accounts at Yahoo, AOL, or bellsouth.net (who subcontracts their email processing to Yahoo). I have a constant problem with well-meaning, but essentially ignorant, email users who, upon seeing a "Reply To:" field in their MUA's setup screen, dutifully fill it in with their email address. Then they complain that even though they "replied to the list", their email went only to the poster. That's why I have to "first_strip_reply_to", and it appears, will still have to do so in your new paradigm, Stephen. You can't defeat ignorance, only battle it to a bloody draw. I've been doing this for years, and it seems that the proliferation of POS (not "point-of-sale") cellphone email clients has made things exponentially worse. They are more concerned with adding a button to to automatically order whatever is in highlighted text from Amazon, than with RFC's. -Chip- On 1/28/2018 11:43 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Jordan Brown writes: > > > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author, > > the list, and any other To or CC destinations.? I simply can't > > understand any other answer.? I don't understand why anybody feels a > > need for "Reply List". > > Your preference is noted, but you are definitely in a minority of > those whose opinions I've seen over the decades. Even those who use > Reply and Reply All as you do (I do on this list, for example), > usually have considered it suboptimal. The preferences of list owners > also should be respected, to the extent that replying users don't > care. The prevalence of reply-to-munging says that they (or perhaps a > majority of their subscribers) want replies to automatically go to the > list. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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/chip%40aresti.com > From awhite at pdbti.org Mon Jan 29 11:33:05 2018 From: awhite at pdbti.org (Andrew White, PhD) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 08:33:05 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Users set to digest, but still getting non-digest? Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20180129083133.09e1f230@mindspring.com> Searched the archives, but I'm hitting a wall. I have users who are set to digest (when I look at their profile I can see that they are), but still are getting individual list emails, and not getting digest at all. Any hints on places to look to problem solve this? I had some permissions issues a while ago (after importing old list archives), but am pretty sure those are set now. Any ideas? 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. From chip at aresti.com Mon Jan 29 13:25:56 2018 From: chip at aresti.com (Chip Davis) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:25:56 -0500 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: Apologies for mangling my description of the problem. The senders with the hard-coded "Reply-To:" are not the ones complaining that their emails aren't going to the list, it's those who thought they replied to the list who complain that it went as a private message back to the OP. IMHO, all replies to a discussion list posting should go back to the discussion by default. Any responder is free to change that for a particular reply, but the default should be to maintain the discussion. If a poster really wants private replies, the author is free to ask for them, and may actually get a few. (Most will still go back to the list because it's sooo much trouble to change the "To:" header.) These are folks who constantly hijack threads because they always start a new topic by hitting 'Reply' to whatever posting they just received... -Chip- On 1/29/2018 12:14 PM, Chip Davis wrote: > I am loathe to weigh in on this architectural design discussion, but > it seems to ignore the PEBCAK effect. > > I admin about a dozen _discussion_ Mailman lists as a mitzvah for > various organizations I'm fond of, none of which are well-populated > with computer scientists.? Exhibit A is the number of subscribers who > have free email accounts at Yahoo, AOL, or bellsouth.net (who > subcontracts their email processing to Yahoo). > > I have a constant problem with well-meaning, but essentially ignorant, > email users who, upon seeing a "Reply To:" field in their MUA's setup > screen, dutifully fill it in with their email address.? Then they > complain that even though they "replied to the list", their email went > only to the poster. > > That's why I have to "first_strip_reply_to", and it appears, will > still have to do so in your new paradigm, Stephen.? You can't defeat > ignorance, only battle it to a bloody draw. > > I've been doing this for years, and it seems that the proliferation of > POS (not "point-of-sale") cellphone email clients has made things > exponentially worse.? They are more concerned with adding a button to > to automatically order whatever is in highlighted text from Amazon, > than with RFC's. > > -Chip- > > On 1/28/2018 11:43 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> Jordan Brown writes: >> >> ? > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the >> author, >> ? > the list, and any other To or CC destinations.? I simply can't >> ? > understand any other answer.? I don't understand why anybody >> feels a >> ? > need for "Reply List". >> >> Your preference is noted, but you are definitely in a minority of >> those whose opinions I've seen over the decades.? Even those who use >> Reply and Reply All as you do (I do on this list, for example), >> usually have considered it suboptimal.? The preferences of list owners >> also should be respected, to the extent that replying users don't >> care.? The prevalence of reply-to-munging says that they (or perhaps a >> majority of their subscribers) want replies to automatically go to the >> list. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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/chip%40aresti.com >> > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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/chip%40aresti.com From cpz at tuunq.com Mon Jan 29 13:50:24 2018 From: cpz at tuunq.com (Carl Zwanzig) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:50:24 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Users set to digest, but still getting non-digest? In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20180129083133.09e1f230@mindspring.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20180129083133.09e1f230@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <89f4ec59-6165-a3a8-8a83-1cda954600fe@tuunq.com> On 1/29/2018 8:33 AM, Andrew White, PhD wrote: > Searched the archives, but I'm hitting a wall. I have users who are set to > digest (when I look at their profile I can see that they are), but still > are getting individual list emails, and not getting digest at all. Any > hints on places to look to problem solve this A common problem is two list entries for one mailbox (i.e. fred at domain.com and fred at dept.domain.com or sally.fullname at domain.com and sally at domain.com). Is there only one list membership for this user? (Could be that you're setting one but the another is what they receive.) z! From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Mon Jan 29 14:12:25 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:12:25 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <734adb86-8722-c9f5-9e3f-ddc22abd99a8@jordan.maileater.net> On 1/28/2018 8:40 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I believe that many users think > of mailing lists as fundamentally different from personal email, and > they would like their MUAs to distinguish automatically. This > algorithm, I believe, would do a pretty good job of that. This particular user distinguishes between mail to one (human) recipient and mail to multiple recipients, but the difference between two and a thousand is only shades of gray, and whether some are from mailing list expansion is mostly unimportant.? Either I want to reply to the author alone, or to everybody, or (rarely) to some other subset.? The obvious Reply and Reply All behaviors handle the first two, and the last is probably best handled as Reply All followed by editing the address list. I suspect that there will always be disagreement as to what a single "one button reply" button should do, whether it should reply to the author or reply to everybody.? I doubt that there will ever be a solution, server-side or client-side, that will make everybody happy.? I can only hope that whatever standards develop make both "reply to author" and "reply to all" convenient. (And that's another of the key items:? the "Reply-To: " configuration makes it *difficult* to reply to the author, and that seems just plain rude.) Side question:? when you have a message addressed to multiple mailing lists, what does "reply to list" even mean? > > I want "Reply" to go to the author, and "Reply All" to go to the author, > > the list, and any other To or CC destinations.? I simply can't > > understand any other answer.? I don't understand why anybody feels a > > need for "Reply List". > > Your preference is noted, but you are definitely in a minority of > those whose opinions I've seen over the decades. Even those who use > Reply and Reply All as you do (I do on this list, for example), > usually have considered it suboptimal. The preferences of list owners > also should be respected, to the extent that replying users don't > care. The prevalence of reply-to-munging says that they (or perhaps a > majority of their subscribers) want replies to automatically go to the > list. Lists at my company are simply never configured that way; I don't think our e-mail system even has the option.? (And at ~140K users and thousands of mailing lists, that's not a trivial data point.) Note also that the MailMan UI says "Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is /strongly /recommended for most mailing lists." so it's not just me. Interesting.? I was going to say that none of the FOSS lists that I participate in use this configuration, but it seems that a couple do and Thunderbird's mail.override_list_reply_to is silently saving me from their misbehavior.? Yay, T-bird!? Though, while I appreciate the fact that the default is the way I want it, I have to reluctantly say that it's wrong.? It should respect the Reply-To by default, no matter how wrong it is.? But note also:? the fact that the T-bird authors chose this behavior by default suggests that they are not members of the "Reply-To: " community. (I'm not sure whether T-bird can save me from a DMARC-munged list that uses "Reply-To: ".? That combination just makes my head hurt.) From mark at msapiro.net Mon Jan 29 14:43:02 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:43:02 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Users set to digest, but still getting non-digest? In-Reply-To: <89f4ec59-6165-a3a8-8a83-1cda954600fe@tuunq.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20180129083133.09e1f230@mindspring.com> <89f4ec59-6165-a3a8-8a83-1cda954600fe@tuunq.com> Message-ID: On 01/29/2018 10:50 AM, Carl Zwanzig wrote: > On 1/29/2018 8:33 AM, Andrew White, PhD wrote: >> ??? Searched the archives, but I'm hitting a wall. I have users who are set to >> ??? digest (when I look at their profile I can see that they are), but still >> ??? are getting individual list emails, and not getting digest at all. Any >> ??? hints on places to look to problem solve this > > A common problem is two list entries for one mailbox (i.e. > fred at domain.com and fred at dept.domain.com or sally.fullname at domain.com > and sally at domain.com). Is there only one list membership for this user? > (Could be that you're setting one but the another is what they receive.) Carl's suggestion seems likely, but there may be other things going on. It's also possible the someone at example.com is subscribed and mail to that address gets forwarded to other at example.net so that the address being sent the individual messages doesn't resemble the address set to digest. The first question is whether any digest members actually receive digests. If not, possibly the list's Digest options -> digestable setting is No or digest_send_periodic is No and the threshold size hasn't been reached or cron/senddigests isn't being run. Also digest members can receive SOME individual messages when they post and others reply-all to their posts. However, there should be no way that a member address set to receive digests will receive individual messages from the list. If the list is personalized (Non-digest options -> personalize = Yes), you can add something like You are subscribed as %(user_delivered_to)s to msg_footer to see exactly what member is being sent the message. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Tue Jan 30 00:51:17 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:51:17 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <23152.2005.960382.794473@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Chip Davis writes: > I have a constant problem with well-meaning, but essentially > ignorant, email users who, upon seeing a "Reply To:" field in their > MUA's setup screen, dutifully fill it in with their email address. > Then they complain that even though they "replied to the list", > their email went only to the poster. I don't think I have *ever* seen this full sequence. It may have something to do with being unable to recall an MUA that by default asks for Reply-To. > That's why I have to "first_strip_reply_to", and it appears, will > still have to do so in your new paradigm, Stephen. Yes, but you have to blame, uh, Dave Crocker and the other authors of RFC 724 (May 1977) for that, as well as the particularly whacked MUA(s) that these users use. Maybe my BCP should specify that you should add an input field for Reply-To only if the user requests it for that message. :-) And that if it's in the configure screen, it should have a checkbox "same as my >From address." -- Associate Professor Division of Policy and Planning Science http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ Faculty of Systems and Information Email: turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tel: 029-853-5175 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Tue Jan 30 00:55:25 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:55:25 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <23152.2253.780973.664724@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Jordan Brown writes: > You were complaining that in some list configurations you will tend to > get multiple copies of a message - one directly to you, and one via the > list. > > I was suggesting that one way to address that complaint would be for > your mail client to detect the duplication and hide the duplicate > copies. One convention that was used a lot on one of the dev lists I participated in was that explicitly addressing a senior dev meant you needed *their* attention and *soon*. Suppressing either would be suboptimal (they ended up getting saved in different folders for most of us, and especially as listmaster, *I* wanted the list copies). (BTW, people who reply-all'd to such messages ended up in a lot lof killfiles, everybody happy!) > > I'm /not/ saying where your reply /does/ go.? I'm saying where I would > > /like/ it to go. > > Mostly, I'd say that you've already said that by including the mailing > list in the To or CC list.? When I reply to a message with multiple > recipients (however those recipients might be specified), I'd say that > the normal convention is to include all of them in any ongoing > discussion by hitting Reply All. That's "normal" mostly because, like you, most people think that a few seconds cleaning up a reply-all list is way too much effort. But that habit being widespread certainly means that some people with no interest in the conversation end up in the canoe with you, merely because they posted to a mailing list at some point. Many of these same people think that almost all replies to a list post should be directed to the list. That combination certainly accounts for some of the strength of support for Reply-To munging. ?> If you wanted your message to go to the mailing list but didn't ?> want replies to go there, you could have put the mailing list into ?> the BCC. These days, you mostly can't. BCC'd mailing lists mostly assume you're a spammer. -- Associate Professor Division of Policy and Planning Science http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ Faculty of Systems and Information Email: turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tel: 029-853-5175 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN From turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp Tue Jan 30 00:56:02 2018 From: turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:56:02 +0900 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <734adb86-8722-c9f5-9e3f-ddc22abd99a8@jordan.maileater.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <734adb86-8722-c9f5-9e3f-ddc22abd99a8@jordan.maileater.net> Message-ID: <23152.2290.349851.414385@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Jordan Brown writes: > make everybody happy That's a longer way of expressing "right." I'm *still* not interested in that. > I can only hope that whatever standards develop make both "reply to > author" and "reply to all" convenient. No MUA is going to remove either of those functions. > (And that's another of the key items:? the "Reply-To: " > configuration makes it *difficult* to reply to the author, and that > seems just plain rude.) Why? Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's Reply-To-Author function, and nobody says you personally have to bind "smart reply" to anything in your MUA. > Side question:? when you have a message addressed to multiple > mailing lists, what does "reply to list" even mean? Long answer: click here -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2369 Short answer: List-Post may occur at most once. It goes there. > Note also that the MailMan UI says "Where are replies to list messages > directed? Poster is /strongly /recommended for most mailing lists." so > it's not just me. Opposing "Reply-To munging" is nowhere near advocating restricting reply UI to "Reply-to-Author" and "Reply-to-All", no more, no less. In fact, my opposition to Reply-To munging is a good part of *why* I think "smart reply" would be a useful addition to AOL's MUA, inter alia. > (I'm not sure whether T-bird can save me from a DMARC-munged list that > uses "Reply-To: ".? That combination just makes my head hurt.) It made Mark's head hurt, too. I think he did a good job of mitigating a fundamentally broken part of the Internet, but it's suboptimal that anybody uses p=reject on non-transactional mail flows. (This algorithm can't do anything to help with DMARC, unfortunately.) -- Associate Professor Division of Policy and Planning Science http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ Faculty of Systems and Information Email: turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tel: 029-853-5175 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Tue Jan 30 02:01:39 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:01:39 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <23152.2290.349851.414385@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <734adb86-8722-c9f5-9e3f-ddc22abd99a8@jordan.maileater.net> <23152.2290.349851.414385@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <3ca7b4ec-348d-37f7-f6bd-f0a1ea2416be@jordan.maileater.net> On 1/29/2018 9:56 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > (And that's another of the key items:? the "Reply-To: " > > configuration makes it *difficult* to reply to the author, and that > > seems just plain rude.) > > Why? Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's Reply-To-Author > function, and nobody says you personally have to bind "smart reply" to > anything in your MUA. If you have "smart reply" as a separate function, yes.? If you have the typical "Reply" and "Reply All", and the mailing list software sets "Reply-To: ", then replying to the author is awkward and error-prone.? RFC-compliant MUAs are unlikely to have a simple operation that replies to the sender. > > Side question:? when you have a message addressed to multiple > > mailing lists, what does "reply to list" even mean? > > Long answer: click here -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2369 > Short answer: List-Post may occur at most once. It goes there. So for the general case where you might have gotten a message directly, and through list A, and through list B, the result is random unless you pay careful attention to how you got this particular copy of the message. > > Note also that the MailMan UI says "Where are replies to list messages > > directed? Poster is /strongly /recommended for most mailing lists." so > > it's not just me. > > Opposing "Reply-To munging" is nowhere near advocating restricting > reply UI to "Reply-to-Author" and "Reply-to-All", no more, no less. > In fact, my opposition to Reply-To munging is a good part of *why* I > think "smart reply" would be a useful addition to AOL's MUA, inter alia. OK, so maybe we aren't so far off alignment.? We might choose different options, but that's OK. It sounds like neither of us want the list to set "Reply-To: ". You want a "smart reply" button that sends to Reply-To, List-Post, or From, in that order.? (Right?) I want plain "reply" that sends to Reply-To or From, in that order.? (I don't mind if it's renamed to "Reply to Author".) I wouldn't use your "smart reply" button, because I think it does the wrong thing for mailing lists, but if you want to do the wrong thing with your replies, I guess that's up to you. My only fear is that in the ongoing simplification (dumbing-down?) of this stuff, "smart reply" will become the only option.? And, actually, if that happens then I *have* lost the "reply to author" function. From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 30 10:56:03 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:56:03 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <3ca7b4ec-348d-37f7-f6bd-f0a1ea2416be@jordan.maileater.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <734adb86-8722-c9f5-9e3f-ddc22abd99a8@jordan.maileater.net> <23152.2290.349851.414385@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3ca7b4ec-348d-37f7-f6bd-f0a1ea2416be@jordan.maileater.net> Message-ID: <366ea3f3-f982-001a-5fed-6a8848bdcdff@msapiro.net> On 01/29/2018 11:01 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: > > So for the general case where you might have gotten a message directly, > and through list A, and through list B, the result is random unless you > pay careful attention to how you got this particular copy of the message. If you received the message directly, it won't have a List-Post: header and there will be no Reply-List function. In other cases, the List-Post: header will contain the posting address of the list from which you received the specific instance of the message to which you're replying and Reply-List will go to that list only. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Tue Jan 30 11:32:35 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:32:35 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <23152.2005.960382.794473@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23152.2005.960382.794473@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <76c12a6d-59bc-3b39-12ff-a466c20a2ba0@bmrb.wisc.edu> On 2018-01-29 23:51, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: ... [ Reply-To ] should have a checkbox "same as my > From address." Oh, great, now I'll rreecceeiivvee eevveerryytthhiinngg ttwwiiccee.. Dima From jhs at berklix.com Tue Jan 30 10:48:43 2018 From: jhs at berklix.com (Julian H. Stacey) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:48:43 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sample of an Uncaught bounce notification In-Reply-To: Your message "Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:10:34 -0800." <8e646b5e-7661-de5f-14d1-1ac38e92c70f@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <201801301548.w0UFmhNx098482@fire.js.berklix.net> Mark Sapiro wrote: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:10:34 -0800 > On 01/12/2018 07:43 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > Is this live sample of an Uncaught bounce notification useful to > > forward to developers to extend pattern matching. > > > > http://berklix.com/~jhs/tmp/mailman/uncaught_bounce_notification/1 > > > Thank you for your report. In this case, the message that is an > "unrecognized bounce" is not an actual bounce of a list message. It is a > message (looks like spam) Thanks Mark, It's not spam, but a bilingual German & English change of address, presumably from an auto responder from a subscribed address (I checked). as per From: Dave Dowdy > sent directly to the gea-chat-bounces at ... Which I assume it got from list header of previous post to list: Errors-to: gea-chat-bounces at mailman.berklix.org Sender: "Gea-chat" > address. This happens from time to time, but short of Mailman trying to > recognize spam sent to the -bounces address, there's nothing we can do, > and spam recognition and filtering is better done at the incoming MTA level. OK, I accept that spam filtering is best left to other tools, but this is not spam, but an auto responce from a subscribed address, so if mailman could recognise it automaticaly it would be nice. From: Grant Taylor Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:16:46 -0700 (19:16 CET) > > Is this live sample of an Uncaught bounce notification useful to > > forward to developers to extend pattern matching. > > > > http://berklix.com/~jhs/tmp/mailman/uncaught_bounce_notification/1 > > I highly doubt it. > > The bounce that is in the email you linked to looks to be more an > auto-reply than an actual bounce. > > The message that Mailman is considering to be an uncaught bounce does > not have any of the typical hallmarks of any DSNs or MDNs that I've seen. > > - It is a single text/plain, not the expected multipart/report. > - It is auto-replied (vacation), not auto-generated (failure). > - It looks like a message that a human wrote (in two languages.) > - It has an In-Reply-To header, which I've never seen in DSNs. > > My opinion is that this is the exact type of use case for a bounce > message to be escalated to a human. Thanks. At berklix.org I have no time for subscribers who consume list owners' time with auto responders, I like mailman to auto detect automatic response noise, & count & auto unsubscribe continuing noisy subscrbers. In case the sample is of use I will leave it here for a bit: http://berklix.com/~jhs/tmp/mailman/uncaught_bounce_notification/1 Cheers, Julian -- Julian H. Stacey, Computer Consultant, BSD Linux Unix Systems Engineer, Munich http://berklix.eu/brexit/ UK stole 3,700,000 votes; 700,000 from Brits in EU. Last time Britain denied votes led to American War of Independence. http://berklix.eu/queen/ Petition to get votes back. From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 30 14:36:50 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:36:50 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sample of an Uncaught bounce notification In-Reply-To: <201801301548.w0UFmhNx098482@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <201801301548.w0UFmhNx098482@fire.js.berklix.net> Message-ID: On 01/30/2018 07:48 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > Mark Sapiro wrote: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:10:34 -0800 >> >> Thank you for your report. In this case, the message that is an >> "unrecognized bounce" is not an actual bounce of a list message. It is a >> message (looks like spam) > > Thanks Mark, > It's not spam, but a bilingual German & English change of address, > presumably from an auto responder from a subscribed address (I checked). Thank you for the clarification. ... > Thanks. At berklix.org I have no time for subscribers who consume > list owners' time with auto responders, I like mailman to auto > detect automatic response noise, & count & auto unsubscribe continuing > noisy subscrbers. > > In case the sample is of use I will leave it here for a bit: > http://berklix.com/~jhs/tmp/mailman/uncaught_bounce_notification/1 It's hard enough to recognize all the various non-compliant messages which are actually bounces of list mail and extract the bouncing address(es) from them. While I sympathize with the problem of autoresponders replying to the list or the list-bounces address, to try to actually recognize such messages as what they are and attribute them to the actual list member is a task too daunting for me to consider. For autoresponses to the list, you could use header_filter_rules to match things like auto-submitted or auto-replied and discard such messages, but that won't work for messages to the -bounces address. You can chose to forward such messages to the list owners or ignore them, but to ask Mailman to determine the responsible list member and score a bounce is more than I'm willing to try to do. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 14:46:20 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:46:20 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1f5ee0bb-5e6c-e102-623c-2e9610a418f1@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/28/2018 09:40 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > OK. But I'm not saying "always." I'm saying that this would DTRT for me > a very large proportion of the time, and for AOLers, about 100% of the > time to 6 sigmas. I think that's a question of corpus. DTRT for you is different from DTRT for me which also likely differs from other subscribers to this list. > Others have used the word "right". From the point of view of the > Internet, there's no "right" off the Internet, and MUAs are off the > Internet. Just because an MUA isn't on the Internet, does not mean that it shouldn't play by the same or very similar rules. Further, where an MUA is run, be it a fat local client like Thunderbird, or a think web client like Gmail, shouldn't change what the MUA does. > The question is desired behavior, and whether that desired behavior can > be achieved efficiently (little information to remember, few keystrokes, > etc) and mnemonically for a given set of users who desire that behavior. Agreed. > In the end it's an empirical question. Unfortunately it's hard to get > information about the target population (it's not Mutt users!) without > getting the algorithm into one of the big MUAs. I would go so far as to say that this is likely something that should be a user definable configuration. Which means that MUAs should understand multiple operations and let the end user decide what they want to do. > Mutt and Gnus have had that for as long as I can remember. But there's > always a huge constituency for a one-button do-what-I-mean function. > "It's obvious what I want, why doesn't this stupid software get it?" > I think this algorithm provides that function. The more we discuss this and the longer that this thread goes on, makes me think that this should be a user configurable action that the MUA prompts the user for what they want to reply to in the ambiguous case. Likely with some tuning and parameters to reduce the number of pop ups. > Where is List-Post a conformance issue? You add it if you want to inform > people and MUAs where to post, and you don't if you don't. I don't think me adding the List-Post header to a message going into a mailing list will work out very well. - I expect that the MLM would munge it (if configured to add the List-Post header itself) or remove it. > I'm saying we can exploit a high correlation between "availability" > of posting to the list (the RFC semantics of List-Post) and a desire to > direct discussion (ie, replies) to the list. I think that it would be nice to express such a desire. However I don't think the List-Post header is for that purpose. > It has been a user education issue for 40 years in my experience, though. > At some point we need to accept that users are ineducable. Agreed. I still believe that user are the root cause of much angst. > I'm suggesting that there should be four functions (reply to author, > reply to list, reply to all, and "smart" reply). I suspect that for a > lot of users, "smart" reply will be all they ever use. Fair. There are a number of people eating Tide pods too. I can't help them and I'm getting tired of Darwin taking too long to help them. > Taken seriously that would mean you believe that UI/UX design is > impossible. You actually deny you believe that, and I can't go down > that road. Most users are not willing to design their own UI. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that I think it's wrong for us to make assumptions about what other people do, and to further turn those assumptions into belief that they will do what we think. UI/UX design can help with some, if not many, things. But the users have to have a fundamental understanding of what they are doing. Without said fundamental understanding, the very best UI / UX will still fail. Users may not be willing to design their own UI, but many do choose the UI that they use. Thus, there is choice involved. > If I thought this was just me, I wouldn't have posted. I've been > observing the concerns of mailing list owners for two decades, and I > believe that if this algorithm were used in all major MUAs, there would > be no demand for Reply-To munging. Maybe, maybe not. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 15:33:35 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:33:35 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 01/26/2018 09:41 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: > I was suggesting that one way to address that complaint would be for > your mail client to detect the duplication and hide the duplicate copies. That sounds good in theory. But the practice that I'm exposed to doesn't work out well. I usually receive the direct replies before the copy from the mailing list. With the copy coming in from the mailing list after the message directly to me is processed, there is little chance of retroactively removing the original copy. At least from procmail filters. I'm also not aware of much that Thunderbird can do. Hence good in theory, bad in practice. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Tue Jan 30 15:43:03 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:43:03 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> On 01/30/2018 02:33 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > ...? I'm also > not aware of much that Thunderbird can do. There is/was a plug-in for finding duplicates. It only works if you have both, if you already deleted the off-list copy that's no different from what you get with procmail. Dep. on your MDA setup, list replies could go to list folder and off-list copies: to main inbox. In which case I think that thunderbird plug-in would not work either, even if you still have both on disk. -- 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: From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 16:27:03 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:27:03 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: On 01/30/2018 01:43 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > Dep. on your MDA setup, list replies could go to list folder and off-list > copies: to main inbox. In which case I think that thunderbird plug-in > would not work either, even if you still have both on disk. That's the exact scenario (save for the predictable race condition) that I'm dealing with. Direct replies land in inbox b/c they don't match any filter. The direct reply arrives before the copy passes through the mailing list. Once the copy arrives from the mailing list, it gets filed in a folder for the mailing list. About the only thing that I can think to do would be to have my LDA deliver a copy of the post from the mailing list to a script that would search the Inbox for messages with the same Message-ID and then retroactively remove them. I suppose I could do this, but I've not (yet) been motivated (enough) to do so. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 16:33:38 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:33:38 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Message-ID: <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/29/2018 10:14 AM, Chip Davis wrote: > I have a constant problem with well-meaning, but essentially ignorant, > email users who, upon seeing a "Reply To:" field in their MUA's setup > screen, dutifully fill it in with their email address. I too have seen people fill in the Reply-To in the MUA setup screen. - However I don't see the problem with it. Recipients that hit reply (to a message that has not been modified) will go back to the author, via the From: or Reply-To:, particularly if the From: and Reply-To: are the same email address. So I'm curious how the Reply-To: being set to the same thing as the From: causes any problems here. > Then they complain that even though they "replied to the list", their > email went only to the poster. It seems like you are describing two quite distinct things, 1) how the MUA is configured, and 2) where the replies to incoming messages go back out to. IMHO the way the From: / Reply-To: are configured doesn't matter or impact where replies to incoming messages go. What am I missing? -- Grant. . . . unix || die From jhs at berklix.com Tue Jan 30 16:48:30 2018 From: jhs at berklix.com (Julian H. Stacey) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 22:48:30 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Sample of an Uncaught bounce notification In-Reply-To: Your message "Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:36:50 -0800." Message-ID: <201801302148.w0ULmUrx034351@fire.js.berklix.net> Hi, Reference: > From: Mark Sapiro > Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:36:50 -0800 Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 01/30/2018 07:48 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > > > Mark Sapiro wrote: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:10:34 -0800 > >> > >> Thank you for your report. In this case, the message that is an > >> "unrecognized bounce" is not an actual bounce of a list message. It is a > >> message (looks like spam) > > > > Thanks Mark, > > It's not spam, but a bilingual German & English change of address, > > presumably from an auto responder from a subscribed address (I checked). > > > Thank you for the clarification. > > > ... > > Thanks. At berklix.org I have no time for subscribers who consume > > list owners' time with auto responders, I like mailman to auto > > detect automatic response noise, & count & auto unsubscribe continuing > > noisy subscrbers. > > > > In case the sample is of use I will leave it here for a bit: > > http://berklix.com/~jhs/tmp/mailman/uncaught_bounce_notification/1 > > > It's hard enough to recognize all the various non-compliant messages > which are actually bounces of list mail and extract the bouncing > address(es) from them. > > While I sympathize with the problem of autoresponders replying to the > list or the list-bounces address, to try to actually recognize such > messages as what they are and attribute them to the actual list member > is a task too daunting for me to consider. > > For autoresponses to the list, you could use header_filter_rules to > match things like auto-submitted or auto-replied and discard such > messages, but that won't work for messages to the -bounces address. > > You can chose to forward such messages to the list owners or ignore > them, OK, good idea, I'll see what I can set up to ignore > but to ask Mailman to determine the responsible list member and > score a bounce is more than I'm willing to try to do. Thanks, sure, no problem. Just posted it in case it might have been an easy case to catch. Cheers, Julian -- Julian H. Stacey, Computer Consultant, BSD Linux Unix Systems Engineer, Munich http://berklix.eu/brexit/ UK stole 3,700,000 votes; 700,000 from Brits in EU. Last time Britain denied votes led to American War of Independence. http://berklix.eu/queen/ Petition to get votes back. From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Tue Jan 30 17:02:41 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:02:41 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: On 01/30/2018 03:27 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > About the only thing that I can think to do would be to have my LDA > deliver a copy of the post from the mailing list to a script that would > search the Inbox for messages with the same Message-ID and then > retroactively remove them. Does it ave the same Message-ID though? I suppose if I reply-both on this one, you'll have an easy way to check. (sending to both) -- 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: From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Tue Jan 30 17:04:44 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:04:44 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <1f5ee0bb-5e6c-e102-623c-2e9610a418f1@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <1f5ee0bb-5e6c-e102-623c-2e9610a418f1@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 1/30/2018 11:46 AM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > The more we discuss this and the longer that this thread goes on, > makes me think that this should be a user configurable action that the > MUA prompts the user for what they want to reply to in the ambiguous case. Even getting agreement on what constitutes an ambiguous case might be tough. 50% :-) 50% :-( It is absolutely, 100%, clear to me what I want to happen on Reply and Reply All.? But it seems that that is not what you want to happen... From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Tue Jan 30 17:09:49 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:09:49 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: To answer my own question, the one I got back from the list has the same message id that was sent out so a t least in this particular delivery chain nothing mangled it. In that case keeping a list of the N last delivered message ids and discarding ones already on the list shouldn't be too difficult indeed. The only problem then is list mail will seldom land in the list sub-folders as the direct replies should almost always come first and land in inbox. -- 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: From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Tue Jan 30 17:11:05 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:11:05 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <2f2081e0-0fed-d645-bfa4-e83b2fed8231@jordan.maileater.net> On 1/30/2018 1:33 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > So I'm curious how the Reply-To: being set to the same thing as the > From: causes any problems here. There are those who would consider it a problem if your mailing list is (mis:-)configured to add "Reply-To: " if there is no existing "Reply-To".? Replies will be routed to the author, where replies to other messages will be routed to the list. From dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu Tue Jan 30 17:15:00 2018 From: dmaziuk at bmrb.wisc.edu (Dimitri Maziuk) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:15:00 -0600 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <28a4cb72-1e7b-aa7d-03f1-c4baa44ffc45@bmrb.wisc.edu> And PPS my maildropex(7) has ''' Check if the Message-ID: header in the message is identical to the same header that was recently seen. Discard the message if it is, otherwise continue to filter the message: ?reformail -D 8000 duplicate.cache? if ( $RETURNCODE == 0 ) exit The reformail[1] command maintains a list of recently seen Message-IDs in the file duplicate.cache. ''' -- 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: From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Tue Jan 30 17:29:30 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:29:30 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <25a7aeb1-0f69-f45f-ed1a-fd49aa4d6573@jordan.maileater.net> On 1/30/2018 2:09 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > The only problem then is list mail will seldom land in the list > sub-folders as the direct replies should almost always come first and > land in inbox. That depends entirely on how you design your filters.? My Mailman filter looks for From, To, CC, or BCC containing mailman-users at python.org.? It could also reasonably look for Envelope-To[*] containing mailman at jordan.maileater.net, which would also capture private Mailman-related conversations, but I haven't had enough of those to bother. [*] Added by my MTA on receipt. From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 17:42:13 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:42:13 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <1f5ee0bb-5e6c-e102-623c-2e9610a418f1@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 01/30/2018 03:04 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: > Even getting agreement on what constitutes an ambiguous case might > be tough. Agreement between people may be problematic. I think it will be quite simple to get people to define what they like and dislike. Which will likely differ from what other people say. > It is absolutely, 100%, clear to me what I want to happen on Reply and > Reply All. But it seems that that is not what you want to happen... We are all entitled to our own opinions. ;-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 17:43:52 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:43:52 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <26596512-c069-0b13-4447-0a8713990ee5@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/30/2018 03:02 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > Does it ave the same Message-ID though? I suppose if I reply-both on > this one, you'll have an easy way to check. Yes, they frequently do have the same Message-ID. About the only time they don't is if the MLM changes the Message-ID. > (sending to both) :-/ I prefer to only receive messages to the mailing list. But I understand why you replied to both. ;-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 17:47:59 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:47:59 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <5099c26d-143a-deed-f355-516b175c9b46@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/30/2018 03:09 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > To answer my own question, the one I got back from the list has the same > message id that was sent out so a t least in this particular delivery > chain nothing mangled it. ;-) > In that case keeping a list of the N last delivered message ids and > discarding ones already on the list shouldn't be too difficult indeed. Nope, that's not difficult do to. The catch is that this doesn't do what I want it to do. > The only problem then is list mail will seldom land in the list > sub-folders as the direct replies should almost always come first and > land in inbox. I don't know about the /only/ problem per say, but certainly /a/ problem. I would much rather have a spurious message in my Inbox in addition to the message that I want, from the mailing list, in the folder for said mailing list. In this case, I need something that will identify the dup in the Inbox and remove it when the message arrives from the mailing list, second / minutes / hours later. This simply is not conducive to typical procmail (like) filtering schemes. Also remember that these two messages are not identical. They are close, and the message from the list is based off of the direct message. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 30 18:03:56 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:03:56 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <26596512-c069-0b13-4447-0a8713990ee5@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2531c94e-6369-c58c-81ea-000539c27a3a@bmrb.wisc.edu> <26596512-c069-0b13-4447-0a8713990ee5@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 01/30/2018 02:43 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 01/30/2018 03:02 PM, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: >> Does it ave the same Message-ID though? I suppose if I reply-both on >> this one, you'll have an easy way to check. > > Yes, they frequently do have the same Message-ID.? About the only time > they don't is if the MLM changes the Message-ID. Which Mailman doesn't do except for posts to anonymous lists (for privacy reasons) and posts gated to Usenet (for reasons having to do with potential cross-posting to multiple lists that gate to Usenet but to different news groups. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 18:42:57 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:42:57 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <2f2081e0-0fed-d645-bfa4-e83b2fed8231@jordan.maileater.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2f2081e0-0fed-d645-bfa4-e83b2fed8231@jordan.maileater.net> Message-ID: <5010d89a-a4b8-6559-10be-5fbd4b3b31db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/30/2018 03:11 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: > There are those who would consider it a problem if your mailing list is > (mis:-)configured to add "Reply-To: " if there is no existing > "Reply-To". I don't see how the MLM's behavior (good / bad / indifferent) has anything to do with this being a problem. Specifically that the sample message has the Reply-To: set to the same value as the From:. From: Grant Taylor To: Mailman-Users CC: REDACTED Reply-To: Grant Taylor Subject: Testing... > Replies will be routed to the author, where replies to other messages > will be routed to the list. I assume that you are referring to messages coming out of the MLM, in comparison to messages that went directly to CC recipients and where their replies would go. I.e. if REDACTED replies to the above message vs a mailing list subscriber replying to the message they received. I personally would try to avoid the above scenario, particularly when a discussion mailing list is one of the recipients. Or I'd like configure the Reply-To: to reflect the mailing list. (Of course that has it's own complications and failure modes.) -- Grant. . . . unix || die From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Tue Jan 30 19:53:10 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:53:10 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <5010d89a-a4b8-6559-10be-5fbd4b3b31db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2f2081e0-0fed-d645-bfa4-e83b2fed8231@jordan.maileater.net> <5010d89a-a4b8-6559-10be-5fbd4b3b31db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <66e49cc6-24f7-1154-a573-1fa611bc45d9@jordan.maileater.net> [ Feh.? My biggest MUA<->ML nuisance is that I don't have a way to force replies to use the custom From address that I use for that mailing list.? Grant, sorry for the dup. ] On 1/30/2018 3:42 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 01/30/2018 03:11 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: >> There are those who would consider it a problem if your mailing list >> is (mis:-)configured to add "Reply-To: " if there is no >> existing "Reply-To". > > I don't see how the MLM's behavior (good / bad / indifferent) has > anything to do with this being a problem.? Specifically that the > sample message has the Reply-To: set to the same value as the From:. If your Mailman is configured so: Should any existing?Reply-To:?header found in the original message be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explict?Reply-To:?header is added by Mailman or not.? (Edit?*first_strip_reply_to*) No Yes Where are replies to list messages directed??Poster?is?/strongly/?recommended for most mailing lists.? (Details for?*reply_goes_to_list*) Poster This list Explicit address (that is, first_strip_reply_to=No, reply_goes_to_list=This List) Then if user A sends a message to the list without a Reply-To, replies will go to the list, but if user B sends a message to the list with "Reply-To: " replies will go to user B. Some people would regard it as a problem that the replies to user B aren't directed towards the list. As you say, setting Reply-To to the same as From should have no effect, but that's not the case in this configuration.? (Nor is it the case for Stephen's proposed "smart single reply", at the MUA end; in his proposal an explicit Reply-To beats List-Post beats From.) (I would regard it as a problem that replies to user A *are* directed toward the list, but we're not talking about my preferences here; I'm just trying to explain why some people have a problem with a message that has Reply-To the same as From.) From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 30 21:22:43 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:22:43 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <66e49cc6-24f7-1154-a573-1fa611bc45d9@jordan.maileater.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2f2081e0-0fed-d645-bfa4-e83b2fed8231@jordan.maileater.net> <5010d89a-a4b8-6559-10be-5fbd4b3b31db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <66e49cc6-24f7-1154-a573-1fa611bc45d9@jordan.maileater.net> Message-ID: <09b51de1-b570-0c61-a4f8-cda144754a64@msapiro.net> On 01/30/2018 04:53 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: > > (that is, first_strip_reply_to=No, reply_goes_to_list=This List) > > Then if user A sends a message to the list without a Reply-To, replies > will go to the list, but if user B sends a message to the list with > "Reply-To: " replies will go to user B. No. In the User A case messages from the list will have a Reply-To with the list address and replies (ignoring the pathological recent Thunderbird) will go to the list as you say, but in the User B case, messages from the list will have a Reply-To with both User B's address and the list address and replies will go to both User B and the list. Of course, not all MUA's behave exactly the same with reply in cases where there are multiple addresses in Reply-To: but reasonable ones at least will address the reply to all the Reply-To: addresses. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 21:42:07 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:42:07 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <66e49cc6-24f7-1154-a573-1fa611bc45d9@jordan.maileater.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2f2081e0-0fed-d645-bfa4-e83b2fed8231@jordan.maileater.net> <5010d89a-a4b8-6559-10be-5fbd4b3b31db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <66e49cc6-24f7-1154-a573-1fa611bc45d9@jordan.maileater.net> Message-ID: <4ab116ab-3e18-002e-829e-e1d2c35cd9a0@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/30/2018 05:53 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: > [ Feh. My biggest MUA<->ML nuisance is that I don't have a way to force > replies to use the custom From address that I use for that mailing list. I'm assuming that you're talking about the address that address that direct replies go to. My solution is to use a custom From: address (and occasionally to manually set the Reply-To: address) according to where I want the message (reply) to go to. Yes, I use MANY different email addresses for this and similar reasons. > Grant, sorry for the dup. ] I understand why. I don't hold my preference against you or others. > If your Mailman is configured so: > > ? > > (that is, first_strip_reply_to=No, reply_goes_to_list=This List) > > Then if user A sends a message to the list without a Reply-To, replies > will go to the list, but if user B sends a message to the list with > "Reply-To: " replies will go to user B. Okay. I think I'm starting to see the problem that you're alluding to. It's not so much that people set a Reply-To: in their MUA in and of itself. It's the interaction of their settings in relation to MLMs configured like above. I don't recall Mailman's behavior for reply_goes_to_list=This List to say for sure, but I would think that without first_strip_reply_to that Mailman would add the list as an additional Reply-To. Thus replies would go to the value of Reply-To /and/ to the list. > Some people would regard it as a problem that the replies to user B > aren't directed towards the list. I agree for discussion lists. > As you say, setting Reply-To to the same as From should have no effect, > but that's not the case in this configuration. (Nor is it the case for > Stephen's proposed "smart single reply", at the MUA end; in his proposal > an explicit Reply-To beats List-Post beats From.) > > (I would regard it as a problem that replies to user A *are* directed > toward the list, but we're not talking about my preferences here; I'm > just trying to explain why some people have a problem with a message > that has Reply-To the same as From.) ACK Thank you for the explanation. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Tue Jan 30 21:46:01 2018 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:46:01 -0700 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <09b51de1-b570-0c61-a4f8-cda144754a64@msapiro.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2f2081e0-0fed-d645-bfa4-e83b2fed8231@jordan.maileater.net> <5010d89a-a4b8-6559-10be-5fbd4b3b31db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <66e49cc6-24f7-1154-a573-1fa611bc45d9@jordan.maileater.net> <09b51de1-b570-0c61-a4f8-cda144754a64@msapiro.net> Message-ID: <66025538-66cc-04ec-f5a4-c183fe288be2@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 01/30/2018 07:22 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > No. In the User A case messages from the list will have a Reply-To > with the list address and replies (ignoring the pathological recent > Thunderbird) will go to the list as you say, but in the User B case, > messages from the list will have a Reply-To with both User B's address > and the list address and replies will go to both User B and the list. Thank you for the confirmation Mark. That's what I thought should happen in the B case. > Of course, not all MUA's behave exactly the same with reply in cases > where there are multiple addresses in Reply-To: but reasonable ones at > least will address the reply to all the Reply-To: addresses. I wonder if that hints at another option when munging the From: (i.e. for DMARC reason). Add the author (read: the original From:) as a Reply-To and set the mailing list as From:. That would provide the original author information that many people want and (correctly) complain that From: munging hides. I think you'd have to have the discussion mailing list listed in the From: and Reply-To: in addition to the original author (From:). -- Grant. . . . unix || die From mark at msapiro.net Tue Jan 30 22:00:07 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:00:07 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <66025538-66cc-04ec-f5a4-c183fe288be2@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2f2081e0-0fed-d645-bfa4-e83b2fed8231@jordan.maileater.net> <5010d89a-a4b8-6559-10be-5fbd4b3b31db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <66e49cc6-24f7-1154-a573-1fa611bc45d9@jordan.maileater.net> <09b51de1-b570-0c61-a4f8-cda144754a64@msapiro.net> <66025538-66cc-04ec-f5a4-c183fe288be2@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On 01/30/2018 06:46 PM, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > > I wonder if that hints at another option when munging the From: (i.e. > for DMARC reason).? Add the author (read: the original From:) as a > Reply-To and set the mailing list as From:.? That would provide the > original author information that many people want and (correctly) > complain that From: munging hides. The Munge From DMARC mitigations do essentially that. The message From: Joe User gets sent From: Joe User via Listname and has the original From: in either Reply-To: or Cc: depending on some settings according to these goals. > # MAS: We need to do some things with the original From: if we've munged > # it for DMARC mitigation. We have goals for this process which are > # not completely compatible, so we do the best we can. Our goals are: > # 1) as long as the list is not anonymous, the original From: address > # should be obviously exposed, i.e. not just in a header that MUAs > # don't display. > # 2) the original From: address should not be in a comment or display > # name in the new From: because it is claimed that multiple domains > # in any fields in From: are indicative of spamminess. This means > # it should be in Reply-To: or Cc:. > # 3) the behavior of an MUA doing a 'reply' or 'reply all' should be > # consistent regardless of whether or not the From: is munged. > # Goal 3) implies sometimes the original From: should be in Reply-To: > # and sometimes in Cc:, and even so, this goal won't be achieved in > # all cases with all MUAs. In cases of conflict, the above ordering of > # goals is priority order. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan From mailman at jordan.maileater.net Tue Jan 30 22:26:19 2018 From: mailman at jordan.maileater.net (Jordan Brown) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:26:19 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <09b51de1-b570-0c61-a4f8-cda144754a64@msapiro.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42607.587920.347874@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3f4d8a91-14ac-8b76-1a3c-17abaa6c56dd@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <2f2081e0-0fed-d645-bfa4-e83b2fed8231@jordan.maileater.net> <5010d89a-a4b8-6559-10be-5fbd4b3b31db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <66e49cc6-24f7-1154-a573-1fa611bc45d9@jordan.maileater.net> <09b51de1-b570-0c61-a4f8-cda144754a64@msapiro.net> Message-ID: On 1/30/2018 6:22 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 01/30/2018 04:53 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: >> (that is, first_strip_reply_to=No, reply_goes_to_list=This List) >> >> Then if user A sends a message to the list without a Reply-To, replies >> will go to the list, but if user B sends a message to the list with >> "Reply-To: " replies will go to user B. > > No. In the User A case messages from the list will have a Reply-To with > the list address and replies (ignoring the pathological recent > Thunderbird) will go to the list as you say, but in the User B case, > messages from the list will have a Reply-To with both User B's address > and the list address and replies will go to both User B and the list. > > Of course, not all MUA's behave exactly the same with reply in cases > where there are multiple addresses in Reply-To: but reasonable ones at > least will address the reply to all the Reply-To: addresses. > Thanks for the correction. (Then I don't know why people are unhappy when Reply-To == From.) From Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de Wed Jan 31 04:42:02 2018 From: Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de (Sebastian Hagedorn) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:42:02 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: <1f5ee0bb-5e6c-e102-623c-2e9610a418f1@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <23150.42437.832863.161429@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <1f5ee0bb-5e6c-e102-623c-2e9610a418f1@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <664F324207B0D2BB415751D1@tyrion.rrz.uni-koeln.de> --On 30. Januar 2018 um 12:46:20 -0700 Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: >> Mutt and Gnus have had that for as long as I can remember. But there's >> always a huge constituency for a one-button do-what-I-mean function. >> "It's obvious what I want, why doesn't this stupid software get it?" >> I think this algorithm provides that function. > > The more we discuss this and the longer that this thread goes on, makes > me think that this should be a user configurable action that the MUA > prompts the user for what they want to reply to in the ambiguous case. > Likely with some tuning and parameters to reduce the number of pop ups. This is what Mulberry does, which is one of the many reasons I'm still using it even though it's de facto abandonware. -- .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - Weyertal 121 (Geb?ude 133), Zimmer 2.02.:. .:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:. .:.Universit?t zu K?ln / Cologne University - ? +49-221-470-89578.:. From Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de Wed Jan 31 04:45:00 2018 From: Hagedorn at uni-koeln.de (Sebastian Hagedorn) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:45:00 +0100 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Reply-to options not working In-Reply-To: References: <87d50fa6-e982-1e79-9a52-e792b5023a78@msapiro.net> <6e18c204-f49b-1d5f-225c-b4b26987c857@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <3e4be682-50d6-ee73-a0f5-164d11707e94@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <23144.18672.491811.845571@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <3e4a76f4-a68b-39e5-515c-6308654c6665@jordan.maileater.net> <3cf69a87-3fbc-2e5b-4fc1-38f60592b166@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: --On 30. Januar 2018 um 13:33:35 -0700 Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: > On 01/26/2018 09:41 PM, Jordan Brown wrote: >> I was suggesting that one way to address that complaint would be for >> your mail client to detect the duplication and hide the duplicate copies. > > That sounds good in theory. But the practice that I'm exposed to doesn't > work out well. > > I usually receive the direct replies before the copy from the mailing > list. With the copy coming in from the mailing list after the message > directly to me is processed, there is little chance of retroactively > removing the original copy. At least from procmail filters. I'm also > not aware of much that Thunderbird can do. Cyrus IMAP does duplicate suppression by default, so I never see more than one copy. I usually send replies to both author and list, because you never know how long the mail will take over the list, and with a modern server duplicates are a non-issue. -- .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - Weyertal 121 (Geb?ude 133), Zimmer 2.02.:. .:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:. .:.Universit?t zu K?ln / Cologne University - ? +49-221-470-89578.:. From pshute at nuw.org.au Wed Jan 31 22:08:11 2018 From: pshute at nuw.org.au (Peter Shute) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 03:08:11 +0000 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Only unmoderated messages getting to list? Message-ID: <555274d6f58a42ef95a34ee7f7217064@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Today we've noticed that messages we've approved aren't getting sent out by the list, or at least they aren't being received by list members. I sent a couple of test messages to the list, and they got sent out ok. What could be happening that only allows unmoderated messages through? There haven't been a lot of messages involved yet. Maybe three moderated messages have gone astray, from three different members, one of whom is a moderator. We're on v2.1.23. From mark at msapiro.net Wed Jan 31 22:56:15 2018 From: mark at msapiro.net (Mark Sapiro) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 19:56:15 -0800 Subject: [Mailman-Users] Only unmoderated messages getting to list? In-Reply-To: <555274d6f58a42ef95a34ee7f7217064@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> References: <555274d6f58a42ef95a34ee7f7217064@NVSM1.nuw.org.au> Message-ID: On 01/31/2018 07:08 PM, Peter Shute wrote: > Today we've noticed that messages we've approved aren't getting sent out by the list, or at least they aren't being received by list members. Are they archived? > I sent a couple of test messages to the list, and they got sent out ok. What could be happening that only allows unmoderated messages through? What's in Mailman's 'vette' and 'error' logs from the time of approval. One possibility is the messages held and approved were subsequently discarded by content filtering. This can happen for example if the message is HTML only, content filtering doesn't accept text/html and filter_action is discard. This and other possibilities will be logged in the vette log. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan