Yes, and it still happens. Apparently, AOL has some filter based on a FROM:
address matching a specific list, and bounces it with an SPF error, which it
clearly is not.
Bob
-- Original Message ---
From: Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Have you tried turning on full person
Edward Muller wrote:
>
>I know the unsubscription request was made because:
>a) they show up in the 'vette' log
>b) Some people are sending angry emails to the return address of the list.
a) is good evidence. As far as b) is concerned, can people who can't
deal with an unsubscribe confirmation be
I am hosting a list (running on 2.1.7) that is missing unsubscription requests
on the 'admindb' page.
The list is configured to have moderated unsubscription requests, so people
don't have to confirm their unsubscriptions, which seems to cause a lot of
problems.
I know the unsubscription reque
At 7:50 PM -0400 2006-04-28, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 13:05 -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
>
>> As I noted in my previous response, I believe that the correct field (if
>> Mailman were to add a "Sender:" header) to add would be "Resent-Sender".
>>Please see RFC 2822, sectio
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 14:08 -0400, Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...Trouble similar to a current problem I am having with AOL: they are
> bouncing all email with the
> FROM: address of a specific AOL user, when mailman delivers the
> messages to -any- aol or cs.com
> address.
Have you tried tu
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 13:05 -0500, Neal Groothuis wrote:
> As I noted in my previous response, I believe that the correct field (if
> Mailman were to add a "Sender:" header) to add would be "Resent-Sender".
> Please see RFC 2822, section 3.6.6.
Whatever else we decide, I don't agree, or at le
Now that I have a few minutes to breath ;) I'll try to summarize my
thoughts on this, and then perhaps go back later and follow up to
specific points later in the thread.
I'm sympathetic to ripping out the Sender: field munging. It was always
primarily a workaround for buggy MTAs. If the majorit
Christopher Adams wrote:
>
>I am doing the install as a member of the Mailman group.
>
>I have made sure that the installation directory can be written to by that
>group.
>
>I have run 'configure' and 'make' successfullly.
>
>When I run 'make install', I get the following:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] mail
Dallas Bethune wrote:
>For our uses just
>changing that list-bounces address to something less ominous looking
>would help.
It definitely looks to me as if something needs to be done. I think
perhaps offering 3 options either to the list admin on a per-list
basis with a site default or just a
On 2006-04-27 at 22:46-05 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:40 AM -0500 2006-04-27, Neal Groothuis wrote:
>
> > Again from RFC 2822 3.6.2, the Sender: header should contain the
> > address of the agent responsible for transmitting the message,
> > meaning that a person who sends mai
I am doing a new Mailman installation on Red Hat.
I am doing the install as a member of the Mailman group.
I have made sure that the installation directory can be written to by that
group.
I have run 'configure' and 'make' successfullly.
When I run 'make install', I get the following:
[EMAIL P
Don't forget to consider things like SPF, which I think uses the sender field.
Whatever is used for
SPF _must_ be the domain of the mailman box, or you're gonna run into a pack of
trouble.
...Trouble similar to a current problem I am having with AOL: they are bouncing
all email with the
FROM
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 12:37 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> The current FAQ Wizard has the advantage of simplicity and
> tracking all previous changes (in case things need to be rolled
> back). Wikis, by their nature, are considerably more complex and at
> least some of them don't track cha
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 10:29 -0700, John W. Baxter wrote:
> On 4/28/06 6:06 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:46 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> >
> >> If the previous value of the "Sender:" field is being lost, then
> >> that should be corrected. At the ve
John W. Baxter wrote:
Probably, indeed. But what happens if that header was already "taken" in
the process that brought the message to mailman for distribution to the
list?
As I noted in my previous response, I believe that the correct field (if
Mailman were to add a "Sender:" header) to add
At 12:04 PM -0400 2006-04-28, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> That's fine. I'm not going to worry about changing that, since at some
> point the FAQ should be moved to the new Wiki. (Any volunteers?)
The current FAQ Wizard has the advantage of simplicity and
tracking all previous changes (in c
On 4/28/06 6:06 AM, "Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:46 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
>> If the previous value of the "Sender:" field is being lost, then
>> that should be corrected. At the very least, the value should be
>> saved in an "Old-Sender:" or "Previo
Louis M. wrote:
>
>All digests include the email information for each email such as:
>
>
>Where can I go to remove it. Even if it is a global change.
see the mm_cfg.py options MIME_DIGEST_KEEP_HEADERS and
PLAIN_DIGEST_KEEP_HEADERS (described in Defaults.py).
--
Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manlio Perillo wrote:
>
>But a later set show gave always delivery off.
>
>
>I still don't understand the problem.
>Mailman tried to send a response to my (ISP) MTA and failed?
Maybe these are related. What are the bounce settings for the list?
Does disable occur on the first bounce? Berhaps the
On Apr 28, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Louis M. wrote:
> I apologize if this has been asked before, but I have googled day
> in and day
> out so, if you could point me in the right direction:
>
> All digests include the email information for each email such as:
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 A
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 18:35 +0100, Richard Barrett wrote:
> The reason the [EMAIL PROTECTED] got emailed about the problem
> was that the footers on the Mailman FAQ says "Feedback to Mailman FAQ
> Owner" and "FAQ Owner" is in an anchor tag with href value
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Unfo
It does not appear that Mailman modifies the "Sender:" field to comply
with RFC 2822. The list-bounces address is not the mailbox of the agent
responsible for transmitting the message, as required in section 3.6.2.
The mailbox of the agent responsible for the transmission of the
message would
I apologize if this has been asked before, but I have googled day in and day
out so, if you could point me in the right direction:
All digests include the email information for each email such as:
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:57:37 -0400
From: Apache <[EMAIL PROTE
Mark Sapiro ha scritto:
> Manlio Perillo wrote:
>
>> But I do this later, without effects.
>
>
> Do you get any reply at all to your email?
>
Yes:
- Risultati:
Impostata opzione delivery
- Finito.
- Results:
delivery option set
- End.
But a later set show gave always delivery off.
Manlio Perillo wrote:
>But I do this later, without effects.
Do you get any reply at all to your email?
>Maybe I have to unsubscribe/subscribe?
Can you visit your options page on the web and set delivery on there?
--
Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The highway is for gamblers,
San Fr
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 22:46 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> If the previous value of the "Sender:" field is being lost, then
> that should be corrected. At the very least, the value should be
> saved in an "Old-Sender:" or "Previous-Sender:" or some other
> suitable renamed sender field.
P
Mark Sapiro ha scritto:
> Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> As a response to the "set show" command, I obtain:
>>
>> delivery off (a causa degli errori il Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:21:46 -)
>> cause of errors on
>>
>>
>> I've tried to send a "delivery on" command, but this seems not to work.
>> Wh
27 matches
Mail list logo
