I've been changing my "nomail" module for withlist to incorporate
the new format in 2.1 and print it. Here's the latest version
(use with bin/withlist -r nomail from ~mailman):
from Mailman import MemberAdaptor
def statusstr(status):
return ('0', 'UNKNOWN', 'BYUSER', 'BYADMIN', 'BYBOUNCE')[
Here's a short Python hack to dump the pending.db database in
a slightly-more-useful (to me at least) format: sorted by
expiry ('eviction') date, with key, eviction date, and item tuple
on a separate line. Again, any and all comments welcome.
Meant to be run from ~mailman.
#!/usr/bin/env pytho
I use Mailman with Postfix, and every so often, I would like to
examine the outgoing mail queue and kill some messages. Postfix
supplies "postsuper" to do this given that you know the queue ID,
but won't, say, take an address and find all mail to that address
and dequeue it. Also, I sorta hate t
> "bob" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bob> Also, don't forget that you need to ignore days that go by
bob> without posts. You need to count "posting" days.
I think I convinced myself that you don't, last time I thought hard
about it. I could be wrong, but I also believe not wor
Also, don't forget that you need to ignore days that go by without posts. You
need to count "posting" days.
Bob
>
>> 1) are we a member? No, return
>> 2) do we have previous bounces? No, register it skip to step 7
>> 3) is the member disabled? yes, quit
>> 4) is the bounce info from today?
> "CM" == Colin Mackinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CM> [blushes]
CM> email-0.96 straight in!
Yay!
CM> Now that just leaves me withthe main problem I've been trying
CM> to fix - web based approval of list subscription. I asked this
CM> question originally on Mail
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 12:20:35AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't see that there *is* any theoretical way to *keep* loads down
> > > with VERP, by it's very nature.
> >
> > If one was willing to extend S
> 1) are we a member? No, return
> 2) do we have previous bounces? No, register it skip to step 7
> 3) is the member disabled? yes, quit
> 4) is the bounce info from today? yes, don't increment, skip to step 7
> 5) is the info stale? yes, reset it and skip to step 7
> 6) increment score for
In news:local.mailman-d> on Mon 28 Jan, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Possibly you need the python-devel rpms too? I think I hit a similar
> issue with StandaloneZODB, which I just released last Friday. Double
> check that and if that's not it, we can go from there.
>
[blushes]
email-
> "MM" == Marc MERLIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MM> You _can_ export ~mailman over NFS. The problem was that with
MM> linux 2.2 back then, under very high load and lock contention
MM> (I sent 1000 messages to the same list on the two different
MM> mail servers to force them
At 01:09 AM 11/01/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Of course, I'm a musician[1] not an artist, so I need your help.
I'm a musician too (well, more so than artist) but at 16x16 I can at least
blame the medium. :) Here's a first attempt.
http://terri.zone12.com/mm.gif
BTW, hi everyone. I'm new. I deci
Please visit the archive of the following listserve. Could you let us know
how we can correct the messages not to appear with so many codes in the
thread discussions and responses and approvals the moderators need to
perform.
http://www.cambridge.edu/eforum/
Example:
This is a multi-part messa
[Barry, question for you further down]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:22:43PM -0800, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
> Right now, it's essentially impossible to have more than one
> machine doing Mailman processing. (Yes, there are ways to hack
> around it, but they get ugly quickly.)
I have a mail server
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see that there *is* any theoretical way to *keep* loads down
> > with VERP, by it's very nature.
>
> If one was willing to extend SMTP again,
Not necessary. If you know the remote MTA supports VERP, you ca
> "DM" == Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DM> I could be high, but it looks like the sequence in Bouncer.py
DM> is:
| 1) are we a member? No, return
| 2) do we have previous bounces? No, register it and quit
| 3) is the member disabled? yes, quit
| 4) is the
> "JRM" == Jason R Mastaler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JRM> Well, at least we are "fixing" this here.
Mailman shall rule THE WORLD!
>> If so, the order ought to go (I think)
>> 1. From: 2. From_ 3. Reply-To: 4. Sender:
JRM> Alrighty.
Cool, thanks.
-Barry
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
> True. I wonder if Reply-To: ought to be added to the mix?
It wouldn't hurt. FWIW, TMDA checks Reply-To: in addition to From:
and the envelope sender.
> Note that all are easily spoofable, so that argument doesn't bother
> me much.
Exactly. Which
> "JRM" == Jason R Mastaler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When USE_ENVELOPE_SENDER was the default, it was next to
>> useless because it rarely matched the sender's membership
>> address. So that's why it was disabled.
JRM> Understandable. By the same token, there a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
> When USE_ENVELOPE_SENDER was the default, it was next to useless
> because it rarely matched the sender's membership address. So
> that's why it was disabled.
Understandable. By the same token, there are cases where From doesn't
match, but the enve
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:38:16PM -0500, Terri Oda wrote:
> BTW, hi everyone. I'm new. I decided it was time to subscribe, brush up
> on my python, read for a bit and see if I could help.
>
> I've been adminning the linuxchix lists (in mailman) for a while now, and
> other less-public lists
20 matches
Mail list logo
