Postfix Mailman integration

[Ruben Safir]

Hi

I have been running majordomo for a decade+ with postfix with no
trouble but I resently turned over to mailman and it is taking
3 hours to turn over messages.  And I don't have this problem
with normal email, just when I use mailman.  DNS is running on the same machine.

What can cause the list mail to hang for 3 hour or more?



-- 
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http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive 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

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Postfix User]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 06:09:36 -0400, Ruben Safir stated:

> I have been running majordomo for a decade+ with postfix with no
> trouble but I resently turned over to mailman and it is taking
> 3 hours to turn over messages.  And I don't have this problem
> with normal email, just when I use mailman.  DNS is running on the same
> machine.
> 
> What can cause the list mail to hang for 3 hour or more?

With the old "crystal ball" out for repair, it is rather hard to say. You
might consider reading the documentation located at:
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail and following the directions.
Including log specific data is also a helpful endeavor.

By the way, have you considered asking this question on the Mailman forum?

-- 
Jerry

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Wietse Venema]

Ruben Safir:
> Hi
> 
> I have been running majordomo for a decade+ with postfix with no
> trouble but I resently turned over to mailman and it is taking 3
> hours to turn over messages.  And I don't have this problem with
> normal email, just when I use mailman.  DNS is running on the same
> machine.
>
> What can cause the list mail to hang for 3 hour or more?

Both mailman and Postfix log activies and errors. I recommend that
you start looking for warning/error/fatal/panic messages.

Wietse

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Django [BOfH]]

HI Ruben,

Am 25.10.2015 um 11:09 schrieb Ruben Safir:

> What can cause the list mail to hang for 3 hour or more?

Have you tried to look into /var/log/mailman/error and
/var/log/mailman/smtp-failure ?


ttyl
Django
-- 
"Bonnie & Clyde der Postmaster-Szene!" approved by Postfix-God
http://wetterstation-pliening.info
http://dokuwiki.nausch.org
http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Benutzer:Django

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Ruben Safir]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 09:43:36AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ruben Safir:
> > Hi
> > 
> > I have been running majordomo for a decade+ with postfix with no
> > trouble but I resently turned over to mailman and it is taking 3
> > hours to turn over messages.  And I don't have this problem with
> > normal email, just when I use mailman.  DNS is running on the same
> > machine.
> >
> > What can cause the list mail to hang for 3 hour or more?
> 
> Both mailman and Postfix log activies and errors. I recommend that
> you start looking for warning/error/fatal/panic messages.
> 
>   Wietse

yeah -it shows nothing of interest.  It just shows it is being handed off
to mailman.  

-- 
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

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Viktor Dukhovni]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:13:44AM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:

> > > What can cause the list mail to hang for 3 hour or more?
> > 
> > Both mailman and Postfix log activies and errors. I recommend that
> > you start looking for warning/error/fatal/panic messages.
> > 
> > Wietse
> 
> yeah -it shows nothing of interest.  It just shows it is being handed off
> to mailman.  

If you don't post all the related logging, you'll get no further
assistance.  The logs will show the relevant timestamps, and may
lead to further questions.

-- 
Viktor.

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Wietse Venema]

Ruben Safir:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 01:29:21PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:13:44AM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > 
> > > > > What can cause the list mail to hang for 3 hour or more?
> > > > 
> > > > Both mailman and Postfix log activies and errors. I recommend that
> > > > you start looking for warning/error/fatal/panic messages.
> > > > 
> > > > Wietse
> > > 
> > > yeah -it shows nothing of interest.  It just shows it is being handed off
> > > to mailman.  
> > 
> > If you don't post all the related logging, you'll get no further
> > assistance.  The logs will show the relevant timestamps, and may
> > lead to further questions.
> 
> which logs and what time stamps?  

May I suggest Postfix and Mailman logs. Starting some time before,
and ending some time after an "outage".

That would show something about cause and effect. For example:

- Postfix received no mail for Mailman.

- Postfix received mail for Mailman, but could not deliver it to
  Mailman.

- Postfix delivered mail to Mailman, but Mailman could not send
  mail to Postfix.

- Postfix received mail from Mailman, but could not deliver it to
  the Internet.

Wietse

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Ruben Safir]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:54:12AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ruben Safir:
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 01:29:21PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:13:44AM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > What can cause the list mail to hang for 3 hour or more?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Both mailman and Postfix log activies and errors. I recommend that
> > > > > you start looking for warning/error/fatal/panic messages.
> > > > > 
> > > > >   Wietse
> > > > 
> > > > yeah -it shows nothing of interest.  It just shows it is being handed 
> > > > off
> > > > to mailman.  
> > > 
> > > If you don't post all the related logging, you'll get no further
> > > assistance.  The logs will show the relevant timestamps, and may
> > > lead to further questions.
> > 
> > which logs and what time stamps?  
> 
> May I suggest Postfix and Mailman logs. Starting some time before,
> and ending some time after an "outage".
> 
> That would show something about cause and effect. For example:
> 
> - Postfix received no mail for Mailman.
> 
> - Postfix received mail for Mailman, but could not deliver it to
>   Mailman.

Seems that mailman is unable to send messages to postfix fast enough



> 
> - Postfix delivered mail to Mailman, but Mailman could not send
>   mail to Postfix.
> 
> - Postfix received mail from Mailman, but could not deliver it to
>   the Internet.
> 
>   Wietse

-- 
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

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Wietse Venema]

Ruben Safir:
> Seems that mailman is unable to send messages to postfix fast enough

When Mailman is falling behind, what is the number of SMTP deliveries
per second from Mailman to Postfix?

Wietse

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Ruben Safir]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 06:41:56PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ruben Safir:
> > Seems that mailman is unable to send messages to postfix fast enough
> 
> When Mailman is falling behind, what is the number of SMTP deliveries
> per second from Mailman to Postfix?
> 
>   Wietse

>
> Evidently... So what might be a fix?  Because whatever it is it doesn't 
> affect other mail. :(
>
> Feb 28 17:17:18 2016 (29233) 
>  smtp to 
> hangout for 10 recips, completed in 69.241 seconds
> Feb 28 17:18:27 2016 (29233) <56d30c67.7070...@mrbrklyn.com> smtp to hangout 
> for 10 recips, completed in 69.239 seconds
> Feb 28 17:19:37 2016 (29233) <56d311f1.8080...@mrbrklyn.com> smtp to hangout 
> for 10 recips, completed in 69.240 seconds
...

QUOTE:

So it takes Mailman over a minute to deliver to Postfix for 10
recipients. No matter what Mailman is doing, this is way too long by
over a factor of 100.

Various things could be at the root of this, e.g.
reject_unknown_recipient_domain in smtpd_recipient_restrictions
particularly in combination with slow DNS lookups.

It is not the dns though.

Why does it do this only for mailman and no other form of mail?  It makes
me believe there is something fundementally wrong with how mailman works.

I suppose I need to alter this
http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html#hammer


queue_run_delay (default: 300 seconds; before Postfix 2.4: 1000s)
How often the queue manager scans the queue for deferred mail. 
minimal_backoff_time (default: 300 seconds; before Postfix 2.4: 1000s)
The minimal amount of time a message won't be looked at, and the 
minimal amount of time to stay away from a "dead" destination. 
maximal_backoff_time (default: 4000 seconds)
The maximal amount of time a message won't be looked at after a 
delivery failure. 
maximal_queue_lifetime (default: 5 days)
How long a message stays in the queue before it is sent back as 
undeliverable. Specify 0 for mail that should be returned immediately after the 
first unsuccessful delivery attempt. 
bounce_queue_lifetime (default: 5 days, available with Postfix version 2.1 
and later)
How long a MAILER-DAEMON message stays in the queue before it is 
considered undeliverable. Specify 0 for mail that should be tried only once. 
qmgr_message_recipient_limit (default: 2)
The size of many in-memory queue manager data structures. Among others, 
this parameter limits the size of the short-term, in-memory list of "dead" 
destinations. Destinations that don't fit the list are not added. 
transport_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit
Controls when a destination is considered "dead". This parameter is 
critical with a non-zero transport_destination_rate_delay, with a reduced 
transport_destination_concurrency_limit, or with a reduced 
initial_destination_concurrency. 



Where are these configurated?  In main.conf?
/etc/postfix/system/wait_qmgr 

This is very fustrating



-- 
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

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Wietse Venema]

Ruben Safir:
> Feb 28 17:17:18 2016 (29233) 
>  smtp to 
> hangout for 10 recips, completed in 69.241 seconds

What is the Postfix logging that starts around 17:16:09 and that
ends around 17:17:18, for a session that receives mail from Mailman.

Wietse

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Ruben Safir]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 07:37:34PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Ruben Safir:
> > Feb 28 17:17:18 2016 (29233) 
> >  smtp 
> > to hangout for 10 recips, completed in 69.241 seconds
> 
> What is the Postfix logging that starts around 17:16:09 and that
> ends around 17:17:18, for a session that receives mail from Mailman.
> 
>   Wietse


Ah - ok I'm learning something at least..

Mostly some address bounces, cruft from the list 4 list sends sandwiched in 
betweem at 17:17:14 and change.

2016-02-28T17:16:08.844634-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: reject: 
RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:08.921350-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: reject: 
RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:08.967943-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : Recipient 
address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:09.036828-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:09.077313-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: reject: 
RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:09.089958-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: reject: 
RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : Recipient 
address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:09.095284-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: reject: 
RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:09.104011-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: reject: 
RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:09.111570-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: reject: 
RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:09.213140-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:14.802128-05:00 www postfix/qmgr[21586]: 0F2FB1616D8: 
from=, size=6960, nrcpt=41 (queue active)
2016-02-28T17:17:14.857414-05:00 www postfix/qmgr[21586]: 7C884163D99: 
from=, size=4936, nrcpt=42 (queue active)
2016-02-28T17:17:14.876153-05:00 www postfix/qmgr[21586]: 7E61E1616C8: 
from=, size=5354, nrcpt=40 (queue active)
2016-02-28T17:17:14.893215-05:00 www postfix/qmgr[21586]: 15E131617B9: 
from=, size=3740, nrcpt=41 (queue active)
2016-02-28T17:17:18.291947-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:18.309670-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : Recipient 
address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:18.343027-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: reject: 
RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:18.350035-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: reject: 
RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 
: Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; 
from= to= proto=ESMTP 
helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:18.389283-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : Recipient 
address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:18.396023-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : Recipient address 
rejected: Domain not found; from= to= 
proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:18.403105-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : Recipient 
address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:18.411284-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : Recipient 
address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:18.418347-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : Recipient 
address rejected: Domain not found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=
2016-02-28T17:17:18.291947-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT 
from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 : 
Recipient address reject

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Richard]

> Date: Sunday, February 28, 2016 21:07:19 -0500
> From: Ruben Safir  
> 
> Ah - ok I'm learning something at least..
> 
> Mostly some address bounces, cruft from the list 4 list sends
> sandwiched in betweem at 17:17:14 and change.
>  
> Two things about this bother me.  Previously with majordomo this
> wasn't a problem but WHY is mailman not marking bounces and
> removing them from the list.
> 
> I know I am asking the wrong list.

As I remember it, mailman doesn't remove an address from a list
immediately as it could be a transient issue. Rather it removes
addresses based on a configured number of non-deliverable instances
(rejects and bounces) over a definable period of time. How you set
those values generally depends on how busy a list is and how dirty
the address base seems to be (and how willing you are to get your
mail server in trouble with sites that don't like high volumes of
bad addresses).

I haven't looked at the mailman documentation in some time, but
suspect that this is covered there in more detail.

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Ruben Safir]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 02:46:40AM +, Richard wrote:
> 
> 
> > Date: Sunday, February 28, 2016 21:07:19 -0500
> > From: Ruben Safir  
> > 
> > Ah - ok I'm learning something at least..
> > 
> > Mostly some address bounces, cruft from the list 4 list sends
> > sandwiched in betweem at 17:17:14 and change.
> >  
> > Two things about this bother me.  Previously with majordomo this
> > wasn't a problem but WHY is mailman not marking bounces and
> > removing them from the list.
> > 
> > I know I am asking the wrong list.
> 
> As I remember it, mailman doesn't remove an address from a list
> immediately as it could be a transient issue. Rather it removes
> addresses based on a configured number of non-deliverable instances
> (rejects and bounces) over a definable period of time. How you set
> those values generally depends on how busy a list is and how dirty
> the address base seems to be (and how willing you are to get your
> mail server in trouble with sites that don't like high volumes of
> bad addresses).

Its been months though.  Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but my view of 
mailmans software archetecture, at this point, is very low.  He tries very
hard to help people and to work on it, but I think it is broken at the core.

For one thing, you do not need a memory resident program to handle a mailing
list...  or even 100 lists.

> 
> I haven't looked at the mailman documentation in some time, but
> suspect that this is covered there in more detail.
> 

-- 
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

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Richard]

> Date: Sunday, February 28, 2016 21:56:48 -0500
> From: Ruben Safir 
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 02:46:40AM +, Richard wrote:
>> 
>> > Date: Sunday, February 28, 2016 21:07:19 -0500
>> > From: Ruben Safir  
>> > 
>> > Ah - ok I'm learning something at least..
>> > 
>> > Mostly some address bounces, cruft from the list 4 list sends
>> > sandwiched in betweem at 17:17:14 and change.
>> >  
>> > Two things about this bother me.  Previously with majordomo this
>> > wasn't a problem but WHY is mailman not marking bounces and
>> > removing them from the list.
>> > 
>> > I know I am asking the wrong list.
>> 
>> As I remember it, mailman doesn't remove an address from a list
>> immediately as it could be a transient issue. Rather it removes
>> addresses based on a configured number of non-deliverable
>> instances (rejects and bounces) over a definable period of time.
>> How you set those values generally depends on how busy a list is
>> and how dirty the address base seems to be (and how willing you
>> are to get your mail server in trouble with sites that don't like
>> high volumes of bad addresses).
> 
> Its been months though.  Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but my view
> of  mailmans software archetecture, at this point, is very low.
> He tries very hard to help people and to work on it, but I think
> it is broken at the core.
> 
> For one thing, you do not need a memory resident program to handle
> a mailing list...  or even 100 lists.
> 
>> 
>> I haven't looked at the mailman documentation in some time, but
>> suspect that this is covered there in more detail.

Address removal is based on the number of accumulated
"non-deliverable instances" over some period of time. I.e., it's a
moving window so if the values aren't set well for the list mailing
frequency addresses won't get removed.

Read the documentation (or look at the code), and take complaints
about the product to a more appropriate list.

[i'm on this list, so no need to include my direct address in any
replies.]

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Ruben Safir]

Can I have input about this recommendation?  Is there unreasonable security 
risk?  I think not, but I want to double check

On 02/28/2016 10:51 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 02/29/2016 01:34 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> I think we can fix your issue fairly simply.
>>
>> Please, as I asked in my reply at
>> ,
>> post the output from 'postconf -n' and the contents of mm_cfg.py.
>
>
> Sorry, I got mixed up.  Its just probably the frustration.  Everyone
> uses mailman, I don't know why I'm so stupid
>
>

> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_client_access
> hash:/etc/postfix/helo_client_exceptions check_sender_access
> hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks, reject_invalid_hostname,
> reject_non_fqdn_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_sender,
> reject_non_fqdn_recipient, reject_unknown_sender_domain,
> reject_unknown_recipient_domain, permit_mynetworks,
> reject_unauth_destination, permit_mynetworks, reject_unauth_destination,
> reject_invalid_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_hostname,
> reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
> reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
> reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net
> reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org, permit


This is almost certainly your problem. All those checks take time,
especially if DNS is slow. If you send a message from a client and
Postfix takes 5 seconds to accept it, it's no big deal. If Mailman sends
to 10 or 20 recipients, and it takes Postfix a minute to respond, it
still may be no big deal unless another two posts arrive in that minute
, and so on until you have a big backlog.

I suggest that if you really want all those checks, that you set up a
separate port for Mailman to send to without all those rbl lookups and
recipient domain lookups. See below.


> vim /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py
>
> ###
> # Here's where we get the distributed defaults.
>
> from Defaults import *
>
> ##
> # Put YOUR site-specific settings below this line.
> DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN = 'http://%s/mailman/'
> DEFAULT_NNTP_HOST = 'www.mrbrklyn.com'
> DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST = 'nylxs.com'
> DEFAULT_URL_HOST = 'www.nylxs.com'
> MTA = 'Postfix'
> POSTFIX_ALIAS_CMD = '/usr/sbin/postalias'
> POSTFIX_MAP_CMD = '/usr/sbin/postmap'
> DELIVERY_MODULE = 'SMTPDirect'
> SMTPHOST = 'mrbrklyn.com'
> SMTPPORT = '25'


Here's where I'm suggesting changes. Pick a port, say 8000, although it
could be anything that doesn't conflict.

Then change the above to

SMTPHOST = '127.0.0.1'
SMTPPORT = 8000

(don't quote the port - it's a number, not a string)

Also, while you're at it I suggest adding

VERP_PASSWORD_REMINDERS = Yes
VERP_PERSONALIZED_DELIVERIES = Yes
VERP_DELIVERY_INTERVAL = 1

for more reliable bounce processing.

But, see below for changes to Postfix master.cf that you must make first.

> add_virtualhost(DEFAULT_URL_HOST, DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST)
> add_virtualhost('lists.mrbrklyn.com', 'mrbrklyn.com')
> IMAGE_LOGOS = '/mailmanicons/'
>
>
>
> There is another one in apache:
> I don't know if it is being used.
> vim /usr/local/apache/conf/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py

No, that shouldn't be used.


In Postfix master.cf add the following stanza

127.0.0.1:8000  inet  n   -   -   --  smtpd
-o smtpd_authorized_xforward_hosts=127.0.0.0/8
-o mynetworks=127.0.0.0/8
-o smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_mynetworks,reject
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=
-o smtpd_helo_restrictions=
-o smtpd_sender_restrictions=
-o smtpd_data_restrictions=

Make this addition to Postfix master.cf and reload Postfix. Only after
you've done that and Postfix is listening on the loopback interface port
8000, make the changes to mm_cfg.py and restart Mailman.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan


-- 
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

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Christian Kivalo]

On 2016-02-29 08:43, Ruben Safir wrote:
Can I have input about this recommendation?  Is there unreasonable 
security

risk?  I think not, but I want to double check


That looks sensible. That comes near to the configuration i use for my 
mailman installation.


You should not do rbl checks on the mailman -> postfix reinject.
Do that when you accept mail from external sources via port 25 in e.g. 
postscreen and afterwards.


To have mailman reinject on an extra port on localhost is how it should 
be done.

On 02/28/2016 10:51 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:

On 02/29/2016 01:34 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:

I think we can fix your issue fairly simply.

Please, as I asked in my reply at
,
post the output from 'postconf -n' and the contents of mm_cfg.py.



Sorry, I got mixed up.  Its just probably the frustration.  Everyone
uses mailman, I don't know why I'm so stupid





smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_client_access
hash:/etc/postfix/helo_client_exceptions check_sender_access
hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks, reject_invalid_hostname,
reject_non_fqdn_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient, reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_unknown_recipient_domain, permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_destination, permit_mynetworks, 
reject_unauth_destination,

reject_invalid_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_hostname,
reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net
reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org, permit



This is almost certainly your problem. All those checks take time,
especially if DNS is slow. If you send a message from a client and
Postfix takes 5 seconds to accept it, it's no big deal. If Mailman 
sends

to 10 or 20 recipients, and it takes Postfix a minute to respond, it
still may be no big deal unless another two posts arrive in that minute
, and so on until you have a big backlog.

I suggest that if you really want all those checks, that you set up a
separate port for Mailman to send to without all those rbl lookups and
recipient domain lookups. See below.



vim /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py

###
# Here's where we get the distributed defaults.

from Defaults import *

##
# Put YOUR site-specific settings below this line.
DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN = 'http://%s/mailman/'
DEFAULT_NNTP_HOST = 'www.mrbrklyn.com'
DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST = 'nylxs.com'
DEFAULT_URL_HOST = 'www.nylxs.com'
MTA = 'Postfix'
POSTFIX_ALIAS_CMD = '/usr/sbin/postalias'
POSTFIX_MAP_CMD = '/usr/sbin/postmap'
DELIVERY_MODULE = 'SMTPDirect'
SMTPHOST = 'mrbrklyn.com'
SMTPPORT = '25'



Here's where I'm suggesting changes. Pick a port, say 8000, although it
could be anything that doesn't conflict.

Then change the above to

SMTPHOST = '127.0.0.1'
SMTPPORT = 8000

(don't quote the port - it's a number, not a string)

Also, while you're at it I suggest adding

VERP_PASSWORD_REMINDERS = Yes
VERP_PERSONALIZED_DELIVERIES = Yes
VERP_DELIVERY_INTERVAL = 1

for more reliable bounce processing.

But, see below for changes to Postfix master.cf that you must make 
first.



add_virtualhost(DEFAULT_URL_HOST, DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST)
add_virtualhost('lists.mrbrklyn.com', 'mrbrklyn.com')
IMAGE_LOGOS = '/mailmanicons/'



There is another one in apache:
I don't know if it is being used.
vim /usr/local/apache/conf/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py


No, that shouldn't be used.


In Postfix master.cf add the following stanza

127.0.0.1:8000  inet  n   -   -   --  smtpd
-o smtpd_authorized_xforward_hosts=127.0.0.0/8
-o mynetworks=127.0.0.0/8
-o smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_mynetworks,reject
-o smtpd_client_restrictions=
-o smtpd_helo_restrictions=
-o smtpd_sender_restrictions=
-o smtpd_data_restrictions=

Make this addition to Postfix master.cf and reload Postfix. Only after
you've done that and Postfix is listening on the loopback interface 
port

8000, make the changes to mm_cfg.py and restart Mailman.

--
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan


--
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


--
 Christian Kivalo

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Ruben Safir]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:41:39AM +0100, Christian Kivalo wrote:
> On 2016-02-29 08:43, Ruben Safir wrote:
> >Can I have input about this recommendation?  Is there unreasonable
> >security
> >risk?  I think not, but I want to double check
> 
> That looks sensible. That comes near to the configuration i use for
> my mailman installation.
> 
> You should not do rbl checks on the mailman -> postfix reinject.
> Do that when you accept mail from external sources via port 25 in
> e.g. postscreen and afterwards.
> 
> To have mailman reinject on an extra port on localhost is how it
> should be done.


Thanks!

> >On 02/28/2016 10:51 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> >>On 02/29/2016 01:34 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> >>>I think we can fix your issue fairly simply.
> >>>
> >>>Please, as I asked in my reply at
> >>>,
> >>>post the output from 'postconf -n' and the contents of mm_cfg.py.
> >>
> >>
> >>Sorry, I got mixed up.  Its just probably the frustration.  Everyone
> >>uses mailman, I don't know why I'm so stupid
> >>
> >>
> >
> >>smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_client_access
> >>hash:/etc/postfix/helo_client_exceptions check_sender_access
> >>hash:/etc/postfix/sender_checks, reject_invalid_hostname,
> >>reject_non_fqdn_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_sender,
> >>reject_non_fqdn_recipient, reject_unknown_sender_domain,
> >>reject_unknown_recipient_domain, permit_mynetworks,
> >>reject_unauth_destination, permit_mynetworks,
> >>reject_unauth_destination,
> >>reject_invalid_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_hostname,
> >>reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
> >>reject_unknown_sender_domain, reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
> >>reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net
> >>reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org, permit
> >
> >
> >This is almost certainly your problem. All those checks take time,
> >especially if DNS is slow. If you send a message from a client and
> >Postfix takes 5 seconds to accept it, it's no big deal. If Mailman
> >sends
> >to 10 or 20 recipients, and it takes Postfix a minute to respond, it
> >still may be no big deal unless another two posts arrive in that minute
> >, and so on until you have a big backlog.
> >
> >I suggest that if you really want all those checks, that you set up a
> >separate port for Mailman to send to without all those rbl lookups and
> >recipient domain lookups. See below.
> >
> >
> >>vim /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py
> >>
> >>###
> >># Here's where we get the distributed defaults.
> >>
> >>from Defaults import *
> >>
> >>##
> >># Put YOUR site-specific settings below this line.
> >>DEFAULT_URL_PATTERN = 'http://%s/mailman/'
> >>DEFAULT_NNTP_HOST = 'www.mrbrklyn.com'
> >>DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST = 'nylxs.com'
> >>DEFAULT_URL_HOST = 'www.nylxs.com'
> >>MTA = 'Postfix'
> >>POSTFIX_ALIAS_CMD = '/usr/sbin/postalias'
> >>POSTFIX_MAP_CMD = '/usr/sbin/postmap'
> >>DELIVERY_MODULE = 'SMTPDirect'
> >>SMTPHOST = 'mrbrklyn.com'
> >>SMTPPORT = '25'
> >
> >
> >Here's where I'm suggesting changes. Pick a port, say 8000, although it
> >could be anything that doesn't conflict.
> >
> >Then change the above to
> >
> >SMTPHOST = '127.0.0.1'
> >SMTPPORT = 8000
> >
> >(don't quote the port - it's a number, not a string)
> >
> >Also, while you're at it I suggest adding
> >
> >VERP_PASSWORD_REMINDERS = Yes
> >VERP_PERSONALIZED_DELIVERIES = Yes
> >VERP_DELIVERY_INTERVAL = 1
> >
> >for more reliable bounce processing.
> >
> >But, see below for changes to Postfix master.cf that you must make
> >first.
> >
> >>add_virtualhost(DEFAULT_URL_HOST, DEFAULT_EMAIL_HOST)
> >>add_virtualhost('lists.mrbrklyn.com', 'mrbrklyn.com')
> >>IMAGE_LOGOS = '/mailmanicons/'
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>There is another one in apache:
> >>I don't know if it is being used.
> >>vim /usr/local/apache/conf/mailman/Mailman/mm_cfg.py
> >
> >No, that shouldn't be used.
> >
> >
> >In Postfix master.cf add the following stanza
> >
> >127.0.0.1:8000  inet  n   -   -   --  smtpd
> >-o smtpd_authorized_xforward_hosts=127.0.0.0/8
> >-o mynetworks=127.0.0.0/8
> >-o smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_mynetworks,reject
> >-o smtpd_client_restrictions=
> >-o smtpd_helo_restrictions=
> >-o smtpd_sender_restrictions=
> >-o smtpd_data_restrictions=
> >
> >Make this addition to Postfix master.cf and reload Postfix. Only after
> >you've done that and Postfix is listening on the loopback
> >interface port
> >8000, make the changes to mm_cfg.py and restart Mailman.
> >
> >--
> >Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
> >San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan
> >
> >
> >--
> >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.mrbrkly

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Viktor Dukhovni]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:38:26AM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:

> > To have mailman reinject on an extra port on localhost is how it
> > should be done.
> 
> Thanks!

Note that much of the delay was likely due to mailman hitting tarpit
controls after 10 invalid recipients in a single submission.

http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_error_sleep_time

Although slow DNS lookups could well have contributed.

For submission of list messages to a large number of recipients,
I would generally use sendmail(1) rather than SMTP.  Don't know
whether mailman supports that.

-- 
Viktor.

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Curtis Villamizar]

In message <20160229171935.gh12...@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Viktor Dukhovni writes:
 
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:38:26AM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
>  
> > > To have mailman reinject on an extra port on localhost is how it
> > > should be done.
> > 
> > Thanks!
>  
> Note that much of the delay was likely due to mailman hitting tarpit
> controls after 10 invalid recipients in a single submission.
>  
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_error_sleep_time
>  
> Although slow DNS lookups could well have contributed.
>  
> For submission of list messages to a large number of recipients,
> I would generally use sendmail(1) rather than SMTP.  Don't know
> whether mailman supports that.
>  
> -- 
>   Viktor.


IETF uses mailman and supports a large number of working group mailing
lists with up to thousands of subscribers per list, with subscribers
from all over the world, so clearly mailman is usable in for a large
number of large mailing lists.  I think most IETF mailing lists
switched from majordomo some 15 years ago when mailman was fairly new.

Maybe this isn't a useful response.  Just pointing to an existance
proof that the mailman architecture is not fundamentally broken.

btw- I can't tell from headers whether they use sendmail.org sendmail
or postfix or something else, but amavisd-new is mentioned in the
headers.  amsl.com runs most of the mailing lists.

Curtis

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Viktor Dukhovni]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

>  I can't tell from headers whether they use sendmail.org sendmail
> or postfix or something else, but amavisd-new is mentioned in the
> headers.  amsl.com runs most of the mailing lists.

The ietf.org MTAs operated by AMSL run Postfix.

-- 
Viktor.

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[@lbutlr]

On Sun Feb 28 2016 19:56:48 Ruben Safir  said:
> 
> Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but my view of mailmans software archetecture, 
> at this point, is very low.  He tries very hard to help people and to work on 
> it, but I think it is broken at the core.

I am not currently hosting any mailing lists, but I have used mailman for many 
years in the past, and I find this statement is not indicative of the software 
I ran.

-- 
No man is free who is not master of himself

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Bill Cole]

On 29 Feb 2016, at 2:43, Ruben Safir wrote:

Can I have input about this recommendation?  Is there unreasonable 
security

risk?  I think not, but I want to double check



It's fine, assuming that you can trust everything else running on the 
host that you're running Mailman and Postfix on not to find that config 
and start spamming through the port 8000 listener. If you deem that a 
problem (it MAY be but probably isn't) you could set up a more secure 
rig for the interaction but that is probably not worth the frustration. 
If the loopback is already in your port 25 $mynetworks, this is not 
substantively adding to your risk.


If you want to understand what is/was causing trouble, consider these 
three attempts by Mailman to pass Postfix messages:


On 28 Feb 2016, at 21:07, Ruben Safir wrote:

2016-02-28T17:16:08.921350-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[25547]: NOQUEUE: 
reject: RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 
: Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; 
from= to= proto=ESMTP 
helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:08.967943-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: 
reject: RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 
: Recipient address rejected: Domain not found; 
from= to= proto=ESMTP 
helo=
2016-02-28T17:16:09.036828-05:00 www postfix/smtpd[510]: NOQUEUE: 
reject: RCPT from www.mrbrklyn.com[96.57.23.82]: 450 4.1.2 
: Recipient address rejected: Domain not 
found; from= 
to= proto=ESMTP helo=



All three of those recipient domains are entirely bogus: they are not 
currently registered. DNS yields an explicit NXDOMAIN from the relevant 
GTLD servers for each of them. These messages should fail, hard, after 
one try. If Postfix was configured to operate asynchronously it would be 
finding the DNS problem AFTER accepting the messages from Mailman and 
sending bounces back to hangout-boun...@nylxs.com. Instead you have 
Postfix configured with reject_unknown_recipient_domain cahead of 
permit_mynetworks, so it checks recipient domain DNS synchronously: 
while the client waits. Then when Postfix tells Mailman it can't handle 
the mail, it uses a transient failure code (450) which SHOULD cause the 
sender (Mailman) to requeue and retry the message later. Often, 450 
would be the right code, which is why it is the default. It's not good 
in this case because it leaves the duty of requeueing & retrying to 
Mailman, which is worse at that than Postfix. Mailman works best with a 
*trusting* and *helpful* MTA between it and the net at large, handling 
the subtleties that MTAs need to handle subtly. It does not cope well 
with a MTA that tells it to come back later with addresses that really 
should be causing hard bounces.

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[/dev/rob0]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 05:19:35PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > > To have mailman reinject on an extra port on localhost is
> > > how it should be done.

Mine uses the same submission smtpd as do regular human users.  It
is not impacted by any spam control restrictions.

> For submission of list messages to a large number of recipients,
> I would generally use sendmail(1) rather than SMTP.  Don't know
> whether mailman supports that.

Interesting.  They do, but documentation specifically recommends
against it.
-- 
  http://rob0.nodns4.us/
  Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Patrick Ben Koetter]

* @lbutlr :
> On Sun Feb 28 2016 19:56:48 Ruben Safirsaid:
> > 
> > Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but my view of mailmans software 
> > archetecture, at this point, is very low.  He tries very hard to help 
> > people and to work on it, but I think it is broken at the core.
> 
> I am not currently hosting any mailing lists, but I have used mailman for 
> many years in the past, and I find this statement is not indicative of the 
> software I ran.

At python.org we currently run ~300 hundred mailing lists without any issues at 
all. We've been running them for about 10 years without any problems.

p@rick

-- 
[*] sys4 AG
 
https://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München
 
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
 

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Ron Guerin]

On 2/29/2016 12:19 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> For submission of list messages to a large number of recipients, I
> would generally use sendmail(1) rather than SMTP.  Don't know whether
> mailman supports that.
> 

It does, but its use is "highly discouraged".

- Ron

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Viktor Dukhovni]

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 07:32:02PM -0500, Ron Guerin wrote:

> On 2/29/2016 12:19 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > For submission of list messages to a large number of recipients, I
> > would generally use sendmail(1) rather than SMTP.  Don't know whether
> > mailman supports that.
> > 
> 
> It does, but its use is "highly discouraged".

Perhaps they have their reasons, I would not be so sure they are
the right reasons, but if their implementations handles this poorly,
so be it.  It *should* work well (potentially quite a lot better
than SMTP, as the recipient list gets really large, unless the list
expansion is done by Postfix via a :include: local alias).

So my guess is that the Mailman developers don't understand Postfix
well enough to use it properly, but the converse might also be true.

-- 
Viktor.

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[Ron Guerin]

On 3/2/2016 1:30 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 07:32:02PM -0500, Ron Guerin wrote:
> 
>> On 2/29/2016 12:19 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>> For submission of list messages to a large number of recipients,
>>> I would generally use sendmail(1) rather than SMTP.  Don't know
>>> whether mailman supports that.
>>> 
>> 
>> It does, but its use is "highly discouraged".
> 
> Perhaps they have their reasons, I would not be so sure they are the
> right reasons, but if their implementations handles this poorly, so
> be it.  It *should* work well (potentially quite a lot better than
> SMTP, as the recipient list gets really large, unless the list 
> expansion is done by Postfix via a :include: local alias).
> 
> So my guess is that the Mailman developers don't understand Postfix 
> well enough to use it properly, but the converse might also be true. 

I used to use the Sendmail delivery module.  It works, and I don't know
why they discourage its use, but I switched to SMTP over the years with
new installs and upgrades because when the authors of your software
"highly discourage" something, it's time to change.

I haven't had any problems since switching, and my lists are almost
certainly about the same size as Ruben's.  The comments earlier about
his lists being dirty (as in full of dead addresses) caught my attention
though.  I don't know whether or not his Majordomo kept his lists clean,
and Mailman's own list cleaning is pretty ineffective in all of my own
use cases until you change the settings.

- Ron

Re: Postfix Mailman integration

[@lbutlr]

On Feb 29, 2016, at 11:15 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter  wrote:
> * @lbutlr :
>> On Sun Feb 28 2016 19:56:48 Ruben Safir   said:
>>> 
>>> Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but my view of mailmans software 
>>> archetecture, at this point, is very low.  He tries very hard to help 
>>> people and to work on it, but I think it is broken at the core.
>> 
>> I am not currently hosting any mailing lists, but I have used mailman for 
>> many years in the past, and I find this statement is not indicative of the 
>> software I ran.
> 
> At python.org we currently run ~300 hundred mailing lists without any issues 
> at all. We've been running them for about 10 years without any problems.

Yep, sounds about right to me.

The only problems I ever had with mailman were self-inflicted. And Mark has the 
patience of a saint when dealing with people with self-inflicted problems.

-- 
Han : Not a bad bit of rescuing, huh? You know, sometimes I amaze even
myself. Leia: That doesn't sound too hard.