Re: [Mailman-Users] Setting MM 3 attributes

On 2/27/20 10:18 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: >>> Setting Maximum message size works in current Postorius. What version do >>> you have? >> >> I'm running 1.1.2; it's from the Ubuntu repo. > > Actually, the issue is Mailman core, not Postorius. max_message_size was > not exposed in REST before version

Re: [Mailman-Users] Setting MM 3 attributes

On 2/27/20 6:21 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > >> Setting Maximum message size works in current Postorius. What version do >> you have? > > I'm running 1.1.2; it's from the Ubuntu repo. Actually, the issue is Mailman core, not Postorius. max_message_size was not exposed in REST before version 3.2.0

Re: [Mailman-Users] Setting MM 3 attributes

On 2/27/20 9:08 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 2/27/20 5:44 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: >> >> Not to hijack, but is it possible to set the maximum message size by >> the mailman shell? I've a problem with that in one of my MM3 lists, I >> really need to set that, but the web interface does not allow me

Re: [Mailman-Users] Setting MM 3 attributes

On 2/27/20 5:44 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > > Not to hijack, but is it possible to set the maximum message size by > the mailman shell? I've a problem with that in one of my MM3 lists, I > really need to set that, but the web interface does not allow me to set > it. I get the dreaded "Unknown at

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project

On 2/27/20 8:01 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: >> Bounce processing will still not be available for new users of Mailman >> which is my big concern. I assume new lists will have to have those >> settings adjusted via the Mailman shell? > > Sure it will. All the settings have reasonable defaults just like

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project

On 2/27/20 5:01 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > > True, until they are exposed in some list admin UI they will need to be > set via mailman shell or the REST API, ... That is IF they need to be changed from the default. -- Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Califo

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project

On 2/27/20 3:09 PM, Brian Carpenter wrote: > > Bounce processing will still not be available for new users of Mailman > which is my big concern. I assume new lists will have to have those > settings adjusted via the Mailman shell? Sure it will. All the settings have reasonable defaults just like

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project

On 2/27/20 5:30 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: I don't know why Mailman 3's DMARC mitigation is considered improved over Mailman 2.1. It's the same. The Settings and Postorius UI for them are more logical than MM 2.1, but they ultimately boil down to the same things. The latest Mailman core (not yet rel

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project

On 2/27/20 1:37 PM, Brian Carpenter wrote: Brian makes a number of good points. I just have a couple of remarks/questions. > 5. MM3 DMARC handling seems to have improved from reviews I have seen > but NO BOUNCE PROCESSING. I don't know why Mailman 3's DMARC mitigation is considered improved ove

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project

On 2/27/20 2:44 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: I have said before that a much better use of time and resources would be the implementation of a light weight, non-Django web UI for Mailman 3, but I don't see anyone raising a hand to do either. Let me be more clearer on this. I have hired a professional

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project

On 2/27/20 3:40 PM, Brian Carpenter wrote: >> If you want to port Mailman 2 to Python 3, you are welcome to do it. I >> have said before that a much better use of time and resources would be >> the implementation of a light weight, non-Django web UI for Mailman 3, >> but I don't see anyone raising

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project

On 2/27/20 2:44 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: If you want to port Mailman 2 to Python 3, you are welcome to do it. I have said before that a much better use of time and resources would be the implementation of a light weight, non-Django web UI for Mailman 3, but I don't see anyone raising a hand to do e

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project (was: Handling Munged From Addresses)

On 2/27/20 2:08 PM, Phil Stracchino wrote: ... > What has this yielded? > > "Most of the most commonly used parts" of Twisted are now Python 3 > compatible. I hear this how upgrading any django installation from one python-3 version to another python-3 version usually goes. I.e. long-term, at thi

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On 2/27/20 11:54 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: > > I didn't realize that there were OS dependencies in the DMARC > mitigation. I thought it was all within the mailman code. It's not an OS dependency. It's a downstream package dependency. If I look at

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project (was: Handling Munged From Addresses)

On 2020-02-27 14:51, Bill Cole wrote: > On 27 Feb 2020, at 14:24, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote: > >> Personally, I'd like to see the GNU Mailman project have a formal >> Mailman 2.3 release that supports Python3, I feel that there would be >> a >> lot of support for that. > > I'm sure t

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project (was: Handling Munged From Addresses)

On 27 Feb 2020, at 14:24, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote: Personally, I'd like to see the GNU Mailman project have a formal Mailman 2.3 release that supports Python3, I feel that there would be a lot of support for that. I'm sure there would be widespread applause and congratulations

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On 2/27/2020 1:38 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 2/27/20 10:17 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: >> Thanks for the reply. I am not seeing that. The From: looks like this: >> >> From: Rushtalk Discussion List via Rushtalk > > That must be a RedHat thing having to do with their backport of DMARC > mitigations.

Re: [Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project (was: Handling Munged From Addresses)

On 2/27/20 11:24 AM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote: > > Who decides that there will be no more releases of MM2 from the GNU > Mailman project? I do. I am the release manager and the only one making releases so I get to decide. > I've got to be honest, Mailman 3 still looks unstable t

[Mailman-Users] The last release from the GNU Mailman project (was: Handling Munged From Addresses)

On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 10:56 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: > for Mailman 3, but that seems unduly kludgy. There won't be any change > in Mailman 2.1 which is only waiting for i18n updates for the final > 2.1.30 release which will be the last release from the GNU Mailman project. Who decides that there

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On 2/27/20 10:27 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: > > From: Jane Doe (jane.doe at domain.tld) via Listname > On 2/27/20 10:27 AM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote: > > Sorry, I meant this: > > From: Jane Doe (jane.doe#domain.tld) via Listname Both of those still have the domain which is also con

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On 2/27/20 10:17 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: > > Thanks for the reply. I am not seeing that. The From: looks like this: > > From: Rushtalk Discussion List via Rushtalk That must be a RedHat thing having to do with their backport of DMARC mitigations. If you don't like it, install from source. >

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On 2/27/2020 1:23 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 2/27/20 10:05 AM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote: >> I've been wondering if we should change that to something like this: >> >> From: Jane Doe (jane@domain.tld) via Listname >> > > We specifically do not do that because it is said that mult

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 10:23 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 2/27/20 10:05 AM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote: > > I've been wondering if we should change that to something like this: > > > > From: Jane Doe (jane@domain.tld) via Listname > > > > We specifically do not do that because i

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On 2/27/20 10:05 AM, Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote: > > I've been wondering if we should change that to something like this: > > From: Jane Doe (jane@domain.tld) via Listname > We specifically do not do that because it is said that multiple email addresses in From: trigger spam fi

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On 2/27/2020 12:58 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 2/27/20 7:22 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: >> I think this may have been addressed but I can't find it. Now that I am >> munging the from address to mitigate DMARC, recipients can no longer >> tell who the message is from. What are other folks doing to hand

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 09:58 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 2/27/20 7:22 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: > > I think this may have been addressed but I can't find it. Now that I am > > munging the from address to mitigate DMARC, recipients can no longer > > tell who the message is from. What are other folk

Re: [Mailman-Users] Possible Backup Issue

On 2/27/2020 12:47 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 2/27/20 6:27 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: >> It has not happened in 2 days however, there are no files in any of >> those directories. Does that not imply the backups are not working? Is >> that handled by a cronjob? > > This has nothing to do with backups

Re: [Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

On 2/27/20 7:22 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: > I think this may have been addressed but I can't find it. Now that I am > munging the from address to mitigate DMARC, recipients can no longer > tell who the message is from. What are other folks doing to handle that? > Other than having list members add t

Re: [Mailman-Users] Possible Backup Issue

On 2/27/20 6:27 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: > > It has not happened in 2 days however, there are no files in any of > those directories. Does that not imply the backups are not working? Is > that handled by a cronjob? This has nothing to do with backups per se. The error messages are somewhat diffe

[Mailman-Users] Handling Munged From Addresses

I think this may have been addressed but I can't find it. Now that I am munging the from address to mitigate DMARC, recipients can no longer tell who the message is from. What are other folks doing to handle that? Other than having list members add their own signature? Thanks. signature.asc Desc

Re: [Mailman-Users] Possible Backup Issue

On 2/26/2020 9:14 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 2/26/20 8:18 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote: >> mailman   5129  5125  0 Feb24 ?    00:00:16 /usr/bin/python >> /usr/lib/mailman/bin/qrunner --runner=BounceRunner:0:1 -s >> >> I think that means there is only 1 process. > > Yes, but maybe that wasn't the ca