Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration
From: Mark Sapiro [m...@msapiro.net] Sent: 17 May 2012 23:43 To: Andrew Hodgson; mailman-users@python.org Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration Andrew Hodgson wrote: Everything works fine, but if someone posts to a list it appears that the archive page gets re-generated without the search box at the top. I feel I have missed something blindingly obvious and I am going to kick myself when I find out what it is but at the moment I am still searching! Did you restart Mailman? If not, the old archtoc(nombox).html template is cached in ArchRunner. That was it, once it was restarted everything worked fine! Thanks for that, I knew it was something simple! Andrew. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration
Hi, One other question if I may: When I run nightly_htdig -v to get the search engine updated, I get the following output: htdig'ing archive of list: bcab-board /bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db' and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db' are the same file /bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/word2root.db' and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/word2root.db' are the same file /bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' are the same file Any suggestions? Thanks. Andrew. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 2.1.15rc1 released
--On 17. Mai 2012 12:58:11 -0700 Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.net wrote: I see that it's still calls itself 2.1.14. I hope I didn't miss anything.. Where do you see it identify itself as 2.1.14? If properly installed, it should identify itself as 2.1.15rc1. Well, the web site still says 2.1.14 and I found this to explain it: mailman-2.1.15rc1]$ grep -r '2\.1\.14' * Mailman/Version.py:VERSION = '2.1.14' ... -- .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - RZKR-R1 (Gebäude 52), Zimmer 18.:. .:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:. .:.Universität zu Köln / Cologne University - ✆ +49-221-478-5587.:.-- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 2.1.15rc1 released
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: --On 17. Mai 2012 12:58:11 -0700 Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.net wrote: I see that it's still calls itself 2.1.14. I hope I didn't miss anything.. Where do you see it identify itself as 2.1.14? If properly installed, it should identify itself as 2.1.15rc1. Well, the web site still says 2.1.14 and I found this to explain it: mailman-2.1.15rc1]$ grep -r '2\.1\.14' * Mailman/Version.py:VERSION =3D '2.1.14' You are correct. Somehow I did something out of sequence when packaging the release. I will correct the tarballs. -- Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.netThe highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration
Andrew Hodgson wrote: One other question if I may: When I run nightly_htdig -v to get the search engine updated, I get the following output: htdig'ing archive of list: bcab-board /bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db' and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db' are the same file /bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/word2root.db' and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/word2root.db' are the same file /bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' are the same file The nightly_htdig script runs the rundig shell script pointed to by mm_cfg.HTDIG_RUNDIG_PATH My version (3.2.0b6 + some patches from ftp://ftp.ccsf.org/htdig-patches/3.2.0b6/) of that script doesn't look like it does those mv commands. -- Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.netThe highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 2.1.15rc1 released
There was an issue in the tarballs I released for Mailman 2.1.15rc1. They didn't include the updated version information so they installed as version 2.1.14. This should not cause problems other than the version displaying incorrectly. If the tarball was installed as an upgrade over a 2.1.14 installation, the update script would not run to update list attributes, but the lists would be updated when they are later instantiated so this shouldn't be a problem. The release tarballs at https://launchpad.net/mailman/2.1/ http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/mailman/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/mailman/ have all been replaced with the correct one. There is still an issue with the bzr branch on Launchpad in that the 2.1.15rc1 tag is on revision 1354 instead of 1355, but that will be fixed soon. -- Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.netThe highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration
From: Mark Sapiro [mailto:m...@msapiro.net] Sent: 18 May 2012 20:27 To: Andrew Hodgson; mailman-users@python.org Subject: RE: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration Andrew Hodgson wrote: One other question if I may: /bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' are the same file The nightly_htdig script runs the rundig shell script pointed to by mm_cfg.HTDIG_RUNDIG_PATH My version (3.2.0b6 + some patches from ftp://ftp.ccsf.org/htdig-patches/3.2.0b6/) of that script doesn't look like it does those mv commands. Weird. I am using the Debian version but have downloaded the source and it has the following in the rundig script: case $alt in -a) ( cd $DBDIR test -f db.docdb.work for f in *.work do mv -f $f `basename $f .work` done test -f db.words.db.work_weakcmpr mv -f db.words.db.work_weakcmpr db.words.db_weakcmpr) ;; esac The nightly_htdig script doesn't I believe seem to use the -a option but it looks as though that is being done anyway. The patch on the FTP site for the rundig command seems to fix another issue with the script. Andrew. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration
Hi, This is a Debian specific issue, look at: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506448 Andrew. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration
Andrew Hodgson and...@hodgsonfamily.org wrote: Hi, This is a Debian specific issue, look at: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506448 Andrew. Aaah! Thanks for the info. -- Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.net Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] what constitutes spam?
Hi, Have been offline for a goodly while hence tardy response to the thread that I started. comments lower down, but thanks to Brad, Richard, Mark, Stephen for their input. On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:33:24AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Anne Wainwright anothera...@fables.co.za wrote: I recently sent an invite to an unknown third party. Normally I agree with Brad Knowles on this kind of thing, but this time I can't go 100%. People regularly do make contacts with third parties that they have not previously met, with the intent of arranging mutually beneficial activities. Heck, if you think about it, that's what you're doing every time you make a first post to a mailing list. There is nothing wrong with that in general, and there is nothing (morally) wrong with that when done by email, to recipients carefully selected for high probability of getting some interest. (From this point of view, double opt in is just a useful, fail-safe litmus test for recipient interest, not the moral imperative some seem to think it is.) Obviously you think your mailing has passed that test. That said, it's bad business IMO (except in cases like a double opt-in mailing list where every person has explicitly indicated interest in receiving list posts). What *you* think isn't what really matters. When done by mutual acquaintance, by phone, or even by form letter, there are significant costs to making such contacts, especially when you do the phoning yourself. You must really value the recipient to go to such expense, even if small. There are no such costs to email, which means that using email as a medium puts you in company with some real scum, who send out unsolicited email indiscriminately, sometimes laden with malware or phishing URLs. It's unfair, I suppose, but I'm not surprised if you get classed with the scum on the basis of the only information the recipient has about you as a businessperson: an email that they didn't ask for. There's another problem. The ISPs are a pretty quick-on-the-trigger bunch, too, as a couple of posters have noted. But if you're not running a double opt-in list, you're not going to be able to get them to change your minds about your list. Everything I know about them, they'd rather lose half their clients' mail than get a complaint about spam. And their customers are not well-informed enough to doubt the ISPs when they blame somebody else for any problems with mail. Except spam -- it's obvious to the customer that the spam is bogus, why is it so hard for the ISP? You see their incentive, I suppose, and it works against legitimate businesses unless they follow the ISPs' rules. I conclude that for an honest business, anything is a better way than email to make first contact with a third party who doesn't know you. I have sinned and stand repentant. I hate spam as much as anyone and we get plenty to deal with. Somehow the Viagra and get rich emails didn't seem to stand on the same level as a once-off invite. But as pointed out clearly an unasked for email from an unknown party is just that. In the light of the spam that we receive, which varies from worldwide mass mailings (viagra supplies from pharmacies in the USA, say) to lesser attempts (local suppliers of this that product or service) there is no fuzzy line where the definition of spam rests, and much against my normal judgement where I see things in shades of grey, I am forced to make this a black and white decision on the basis of the definitions of spam made in the replies. So will make sure that this doesn't occur again and will make clear the distinction to other staff handling these issues. As an aside, I have to ask whether the 'invite' feature in Mailman has a function. If one has to have been in existing contact such that you can ask them if they would not object to an invite then one is in fact at the point where you can ask them point blank if you can subscribe them. Typically someone may query whether we have a specific book title, or whether one listed on an online catalogue is still available. The usual drill if this is unavailable is to say so and then recommend that they join our mailing list for which we will send details (an 'invite') on the basis that it may show up on a future catalogue. I do not see this as sending spam. Maybe you differ? I guess this may be considered a bit off-topic, comments welcome direct if you feel this is so. bestest Anne Regards, Steve -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/anotheranne%40fables.co.za
Re: [Mailman-Users] what constitutes spam?
Hi, For the record the following URL is of interest http://www.spamhaus.org/consumer/definition/ This clearly makes the point that spam is defined by two factors A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk and being who they are their definition must carry some weight. In terms of their definition my mailing was not spam. Still, and I think Stephen made the point, there is also the consideration of good business practice to be considered. over out for tonight. Anne On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 09:39:44AM +0200, Anne Wainwright wrote: Hi, I recently sent an invite to an unknown third party. The invite came from my mailman list, we gave full particulars of who and where we are. We specifically advise that they are not at this stage subscribed to anything and will have to follow the detailed instructions (ie confirm) if they want to join the list. The third party is in the same trade as us, and deals with the same specialities, a third party customer had given me their address in good faith. This week my ISP contacts me with an upstream request from the national backbone provider to in effect desist from sending spam. Looking at the email returned, it was to an @yahoo address, spamcop seems to have detected spam on the basis of it being a mailman message, I am not certain that it was not initiated by the recipient but the official complaint originated from yahoo it seems (who should surely know better). Subject: [196.26.208.190] Yahoo Abuse Report - FW:confirm 3a35c56b531368da533112d96a9cb24c17cf6961 As I said in my reply, this is hardly spam, I did not send it out to half a million addresses purchased on a cd. This makes a mockery of genuine spam prevention efforts when one email from a genuine address can be allowed to cause this. It I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but what can I do about this. Is this a common occurence? Are invites from mailman now considered fair game for spam detection software and humans alike? bestest Anne -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/anotheranne%40fables.co.za -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] what constitutes spam?
Anne Wainwright wrote: As an aside, I have to ask whether the 'invite' feature in Mailman has a function. If one has to have been in existing contact such that you can ask them if they would not object to an invite then one is in fact at the point where you can ask them point blank if you can subscribe them. My cycling club has a general discussion list for which subscription requires approval because it's limited to club members. If a new or renewing member checks the I want to join the club's email list box on the application form, we send an invitation. This avoids the problem of subscribing the wrong person or an invalid address to the list because of typos or unreadable handwriting (yes, we still accept snail-mailed forms with checks, although it's not our preferred method). Even when a club member emails the list owners asking to join the list, we sometimes send an invitation rather than just subscribing if we think there's a possibility the email was spoofed. I'm sure there are other use cases where invitations rather than direct subscriptions are appropriate/prudent. -- Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.netThe highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] what constitutes spam?
On May 18, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Anne Wainwright wrote: For the record the following URL is of interest http://www.spamhaus.org/consumer/definition/ This clearly makes the point that spam is defined by two factors A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk and being who they are their definition must carry some weight. In terms of their definition my mailing was not spam. Still, and I think Stephen made the point, there is also the consideration of good business practice to be considered. Actually, if you go back to Mark's message where he said: As an additional FYI in this thread, Mailman sends invitations with a Precedence: bulk header. This can only be changed by modifying code. Then you will note that the message you sent does actually qualify on both counts -- it was most definitely unsolicited (by your own account), and unless you modified the source code then Mailman definitely marked those invitations as bulk. Even if Mailman hadn't marked the messages as bulk per se, if you sent out invitations to more than one person, then that could also be classified as essentially being bulk. There are features in Mailman that can be misused and abused in a wide variety of ways, and it is the responsibility of the Site Administrator(s) and the List Administrator(s) to make sure that they operate the software in an appropriate manner. For example, if you were using Mailman internally to your company and could guarantee that no one could ever get on any list unless they were an employee, then by the terms of the employment contract you might be able to do things that might otherwise be considered of a spammy nature, like requiring that all employees be subscribed to certain lists that they can't unsubscribe from, sending out invitations to join mailing lists that they did not request, etc…. We have to allow for these kinds of things because not everyone uses Mailman in the same way for the same user community. And some types of actions are appropriate for certain user communities but not for others. We can't just disable or remove features simply because they are not appropriate for a particular user community. In essence, you're asking us to protect you against yourself, and there is a limit to how much of that we can do. At least, there is a limit to how much we can do if we want to keep the software usable for other people. -- Brad Knowles b...@shub-internet.org LinkedIn Profile: http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://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: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
