Ok, thank everybody for all experience .
--- On Wed, 7/9/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mailman-Users Digest, Vol 53, Issue 24
To: mailman-users@python.org
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2008, 10:32 PM
Send Mailman-Users mailing list submissions to
mailman-users@python.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Mailman-Users digest..."Today's Topics:
1. Re: slow sending (Mark Sapiro)
2. Re: Muti-Mailman install (Savoy, Jim)
3. Re: slow sending (Brad Knowles)
4. Re: Feature Request: Selective Mass Subscription (Cyndi Norwitz)
5. Re: Feature Request: Selective Mass Subscription (Jim Popovitch)
6. Re: Feature Request: Selective Mass Subscription (Cyndi Norwitz)
7. Re: Feature Request: Selective Mass Subscription (Jim Popovitch)
8. Using Mailman at School ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
9. Re: Feature Request: Selective Mass Subscription
(Stephen J. Turnbull)
10. Re: [dkim-milter-discuss] dkim + mailman + postfix -
dkim=fail. <<<RESOLVED>>> (bob 001)Knabe, Troy wrote:
>My messages sent to lists are being placed in the mailq and taking 5-15
minutes to be delivered. I use Sophos's PureMessage for Spam/Anti-virus
scanning so part of sendmail config hands the message off to a milter, but then
it is being placed in the mailq instead of delivering the message. Is this
normal, it seems my messages to this list are delivered faster than to my own.
I am using sendmail for my mta.
I assume you're talking about messages to Mailman. If I'm wrong, and
you're talking about messages from Mailman, these should not be spam
filtered at all. They should have been spam filtered on the way in.
In any case, these seem to be sendmail questions, not Mailman
questions. There is some sendmail specific information at
<http://wiki.list.org/x/GoA9>, but it mostly has to do with outgoing
mail.
--
Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan> Brad
Knowles wrote:
> Correct. The Mailman developers feel that forcing all
> replies to go back to the list causes much more harm than
> good.
For a real-world example: We run several thousand lists here
at our university (not all in Mailman) and we had a class list
set up with "replies go to list" (the professor/owner had
inadvertantly
changed that setting from the default). One night, the professor sent
out
a message to the class list, giving them some instructions or something.
Well one student on the list didn't realize this and thought the
prof had sent the message only to her, basically targetting her (I guess
she didn't look at the headers). She replied with a pretty personal
message
back to the prof, and it went to the entire class (180 students). She
was
so embarrassed and humiliated the next day to know that entire class had
read her personal message and were talking about her, that she dropped
the class.
This is basically why you want people to specifically address the list,
if they mean to send to it. Sure it was her fault, but it's wiser to
use the "strongly recommended" defaults than to try to teach a
revolving
group of 15,000 students an email lesson.
- jim -Knabe, Troy wrote:
> My messages sent to lists are being placed in the mailq and taking 5-15
> minutes to be delivered. I use Sophos's PureMessage for
Spam/Anti-virus
> scanning so part of sendmail config hands the message off to a milter,
> but then it is being placed in the mailq instead of delivering the
> message. Is this normal, it seems my messages to this list are delivered
> faster than to my own. I am using sendmail for my mta.
Sounds to me like you're doing anti-spam/anti-virus filtering after the
mailing list. Don't do that.
Do all your filtering on inbound, and then set up another instance of the
MTA with all filtering turned off, and listening only to a certain
designated private high-numbered port on the loopback/127.0.0.1 interface,
and then set up Mailman to use this second instance of your MTA for sending
all outbound mail.
I'm sure this is covered in the FAQ.
--
Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>Sigh...this is my ISP's response
to my request. At least they did take it
seriously and consider it (the option is Mark's suggestion of a severe
limit on numbers of subscribers listowners could add per
day/week/whatever).
"We have decided that we are not going to implement this option on our
current Listserv setup.
"Users must be able to reply to their subscription notifications. This
alone prevents abuse and protects everyone involved here.
"If the person in question has an email address, and wants to be on a
mailing list, they should be able to respond to one message; confirming
their desire to be involved."
Obviously, I disagree. As do all the other mailing list providers that I'm
aware of. At least it's the only large change they've made to the
software
so it's still pretty usable.
Thanks for your help, Mark.
Cyndi
P.S. I still don't understand why they insist on an invite model. Why not
just let the listowner add people but have it not take place until the
person responds? My issue isn't with requiring confirmation (though I
think written confirmation should be good enough) but with making someone
who might be very computer illiterate go to a website to sign up.On Wed, Jul 9,
2008 at 10:48 PM, Cyndi Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously, I disagree. As do all the other mailing list providers that
I'm
> aware of.
Not me. If I were setting up a Mailman system that allowed un-trusted
users to admin lists, then I would remove the bulk-subscription stuff
ASAP. Just saying.
-Jim P.Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:54:59 -0400
From: "Jim Popovitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Cyndi Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Obviously, I disagree. As do all the other mailing list providers that
I'm
> aware of.
Not me. If I were setting up a Mailman system that allowed un-trusted
users to admin lists, then I would remove the bulk-subscription stuff
ASAP. Just saying.
I appreciate your input. I am curious what other server owners/ISP's do.
>From the talk on this list, it would seem that any restriction on what
listowners can do is considered a violation. Yahoogroups allows 10 direct
adds per day and makes you click a couple extra links to find the right
page. I believe the other large mailing list providers are similar.
Assuming you ran a system with users you didn't know well enough to judge,
what sorts of options would you consider implementing? If any...
CyndiOn Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Cyndi Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming you ran a system with users you didn't know well enough to
judge,
> what sorts of options would you consider implementing? If any...
Excellent question. I would have to think, given the prevalence and
persistence of spammers, that any ability to force unconfirmed (i.e.
non-opt-in) subscriptions would be a violation of most ISP's TOS. So
to me, providing the capabilities to disable mass subscriptions would
be a good mmcfg.py option.
-Jim P.I'll be begin by saying I greatly appreciate those who will take the time
to provide me with some guidance and assistance.
BACKGROUND
Our school has access to a Mailman (version 2.1.9.cp2) List Server. We
just want to create a "Master" email list to send announcements out
to
parents and students.
Mailman is provided as a service by our email host so we can ONLY ACCESS
Mailman via a web interface.
If we create a list with 1000 different parent email addresses can we
group them into different lists? The key thing here is if we update one
address that change would be reflected in all lists. If so how?
EXAMPLE
>From those 1000 address I tag/mark all the 8th grade parents addresses and
call that list Grade08.
Then I tag/mark some more addresses as 12th grade parents and call that
list Grade12, and so on.
We could make a third list called Soccer Team and tag some addresses from
both the Grade08 and Grade12 lists.
AVAILABLE OPTIONS
Having read the FAQs, Archives and prior posts it seems like it has
something to do with Umbrella Lists, Aliases or both.
Since we can only use the program (Mailman version 2.1.9.cp2) via a web
interface we can do this:
1. Create a list that we want
2. Then we can modify that list. The modifications we can do are grouped
together as follows:
[General Options]
Passwords
Language options
Membership Management...
Non-digest options
Digest options
[Configuration Categories ]
Privacy options...
Bounce processing
Archiving Options
Mail<->News gateways
Auto-responder
Content filtering
Topics
[ Other Administrative Activities ]
Tend to pending moderator requests
Go to the general list information page
Edit the public HTML pages and text files
Go to list archivesCyndi Norwitz writes:
> I appreciate your input. I am curious what other server owners/
> ISP's do. From the talk on this list, it would seem that any
> restriction on what listowners can do is considered a violation.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a violation, but I would not
want to work under such restrictions myself.
> Assuming you ran a system with users you didn't know well enough to
> judge, what sorts of options would you consider implementing? If
> any...
I think that probably what I would consider doing if the market would
bear it, and courts would enforce it, is restrict mass subscription
privileges to people willing to pay upfront for a multi-year contract,
or who pay substantially higher prices for a premium service. If they
violate the TOS, they get no refund. If they've been well-behaved but
want out early, I'd pay them back pro rata. I also wouldn't advertise
the service beyond the bare minimum ... only people who ask for it get
it.
But somebody who's been around for years and is running a reputable
list, hey, that's not that hard to check. I would think it would be
easy enough for them to find out that much about you and your service;
I think they *do* know you well enough.
I'm not criticizing their policy, especially if they're inexpensive,
though. Making such judgments is not cheap.awesome!!! It worked. Thanks so
much Jason and everyone.
It was exactly same issue that you identified. Appreciate great help from
Jason, Mouss and team.
Following changes were done in mailman configuration to make it work.
--
REMOVE_DKIM_HEADER = YES in defaults.py
SMTPPORT=587 in mm_cfg.py ----- IMPORTANT,
POSTIX/DKIMPROXY.
--
after above changes and bounce using mailmanctl, yahoo shows domainkeys=pass
and gmail too , dkim=pass.
Thanks again.
Bob.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Jason Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My first guess would be that Mailman is submitting the mail using port 25.
> See if you can configure Mailman to use port 587 instead.
> Jason
>
>
>
> >>> "bob 001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7/7/08 12:26 PM
>>>
> Also,
> when I send the simple message from ageoftruth server on one-to-one basis
> to
> yahoo id, it says domainkeys=pass.
> That means it does add the signature.
>
> Only when listserv gets involved, postfix and dkimproxy for some reason
> are
> not adding the signature.
>
> Also, current setting in mailman's Defaults.py is :-
REMOVE_DKIM_HEADERS =
> No.
>
> So, it seems postfix and dkimproxy is not adding the signature at all for
> some reason. It seems, my configuration is not OK :-(. Kindly help.
>
> - Regards,
> Bob.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list
Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list
Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
