Re: [Mailman-Users] Weirdness

Lawrence Bowie wrote: > OK .. Here is the reason it says .. > > Reason: Post by non-member to a members-only list > > but he is a member of the list. Are headers necessary for you guys to see? Betcha he's not subscribed with the *exact* same address as he's sending the post from.

Re: [Mailman-Users] Display??

JustBrits_com wrote: > >In setting up the orginal List and while under 20 or so Members the >membership List showed Full Page (length). When Membership got to somewhere >around 30, the List changed to an Alphabetic styled one and I HATE it. There is a list attribute, admin_member_chunksize, whic

[Mailman-Users] Display??

Hi Gents & Ladies! Another newbie here. Dan/The Fold wrote <> Which is where I am also. FWIW, it's mailman 2.1.6 for Dan's problem. Now I joined this List as it was what was suggested by Bluehost because of my question which they could not answer (and I HAVE found them to be EXCELLENT!!!)

Re: [Mailman-Users] Weirdness

Lawrence Bowie wrote: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the subscribed address. > > >The headers are as follows: > > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jan 27 19:25:04 2006 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from localhost (localhost.loc

Re: [Mailman-Users] Weirdness

Mark Sapiro wrote: > Lawrence Bowie wrote: >> OK .. Here is the reason it says .. >> >> >> Reason: Post by non-member to a members-only list >> >> >> but he is a member of the list. Are headers necessary for you guys to see? > > > What is the subscribed address? > > What are the fol

Re: [Mailman-Users] any info on this reported exploit?

Brad Knowles wrote: > > Some blackhats will already know, but there will be others that don't > -- and who would never know until the first official announcement > goes out. > > No matter what, that first official announcement increases the > exposure of the security weakness. That is an unesca

Re: [Mailman-Users] Weirdness

Daan Hoogland wrote: > I've seen a similar thing. I've got allow regexpes like > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have to approve post from those addresses as well. I > tried putting the list of addresses that match the regexp in the allow, > but no change noticeable. > > > On 28 Jan,2006, at 1:32 AM, L

[Mailman-Users] Verifying posts

Hi all, I've been looking into TMDA (http://tmda.net) and got to wondering if something like this (or a subset of it) should be incorporated into Mailman. Here's my line of thinking: What if Mailman had a means, similar to the current subscription verification process, to verify postings to a

Re: [Mailman-Users] any info on this reported exploit?

At 10:31 AM -0500 2006-01-28, Jim Popovitch wrote: >> But when they make that initial announcement, assuming no one else >> has posted something to some other mailing list, they're basically firing >> the starter's pistol for the blackhats to race to locate the bug and >> start exploiting

Re: [Mailman-Users] Weirdness

Daan Hoogland wrote: >I've seen a similar thing. I've got allow regexpes like >[EMAIL PROTECTED] I have to approve post from those addresses as well. >I tried putting the list of addresses that match the regexp in the >allow, but no change noticeable. Are the posts being held as "Post by no

Re: [Mailman-Users] Weirdness

Lawrence Bowie wrote: > >I forgot to mention that the posts are coming from the local servers on the >network within the same domain. And does this affect the addresses in the headers? I.e. if the subscription is for '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', are the headers in the message perhaps calling this just 'l

Re: [Mailman-Users] troubles with multiple installations on the samemachine

Davide Galletti wrote: > >I had misundertood the text of the FAQ on multiple installations; now I >have tried virtual hosts and it seems to work just fine. Great. >As of the Apache configuration I am already using the name based >approach as you can see from the ServerName >directive; so I st

Re: [Mailman-Users] Weirdness

>Lawrence Bowie wrote: >> Mark Sapiro wrote: >>> >>> What is the subscribed address? >>> >>> What are the following headers in the message >>> >>> From: >>> Reply-To: >>> Sender: >>> Return-Path: >>> and the From_ separator in a mailbox file if any. > >I forgot to mention that the posts are coming

Re: [Mailman-Users] any info on this reported exploit?

Brad Knowles wrote: > But on Monday, they may not know how long it will take them to > create a patch. It might turn out to be a simple matter that can be > fixed by Tuesday morning, or it might be complex and take weeks or months. > > But when they make that initial announcement, assum

Re: [Mailman-Users] Weirdness

Lawrence Bowie wrote: > Mark Sapiro wrote: >> Lawrence Bowie wrote: >>> OK .. Here is the reason it says .. >>> >>> >>> Reason: Post by non-member to a members-only list >>> >>> >>> but he is a member of the list. Are headers necessary for you guys to see? >> >> What is the subscribed a

Re: [Mailman-Users] Weirdness

Mark Sapiro wrote: > Lawrence Bowie wrote: >> OK .. Here is the reason it says .. >> >> >> Reason: Post by non-member to a members-only list >> >> >> but he is a member of the list. Are headers necessary for you guys to see? > > > What is the subscribed address? > > What are the fol

Re: [Mailman-Users] any info on this reported exploit?

At 12:43 AM -0500 2006-01-28, Jim Popovitch wrote: > No. What I am suggesting/recommending is this: If the developers know > on Monday of some super secret issue, and presumably they won't have a > robust fully-tested solution until Friday, I want them to tell me in > no-detail to alert me t