Re: [Mailman-Users] Removing moderation flag via the command line

Mark Sapiro wrote: > Mark Sapiro wrote: > >> Joe Auty wrote: > >>> This does not >>> actually remove the flag for this address - posting to the list by this >>> address still gets a bounce back saying that moderator approval is required. > > > What is the reason why the post is held? Is it "Pos

[Mailman-Users] domain "mail.mydomain.com" at email "myn...@domain.com"

Dear all, I am new user in this list. I have question that confusing me, I setup mailman-2.1.11 by manual from source package. My system is a mailserver using postfix virtual. hostname of the server is "mail" with domain "domain.com". My question are: 1. I had install the mail server successfully

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

On 23 Dec 2008 at 14:55, Barry Warsaw wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Dec 23, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > > > And how does this work when the actual spam message is sent by a > > malware infected computer belonging to an arguably innocent user and > > i

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

On 24 Dec 2008 at 3:45, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Jan Steinman writes: > > > I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent if > > it would reduce spam to near-zero. > > Only problem is, you'll have to go to the bank and fill out the > electronic funds transfer form fo

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

on 12/23/08 2:14 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull said: And the primary maintainer of a piece of software which AFAIK continues to be a source of backscatter might want to be a little careful about suggesting that vendors be billed We give the list owners and site administrator the option of choos

Re: [Mailman-Users] connect to exchange server

On 12/19/2008 11:42 AM, Jeanne Ilchuk wrote: Thanks, Grant. My email to the mailman list is taking a long time to get through. Would you mind doing a reply all ? I'm on vacation and will work on this next week. Needs to be up and running by the end of the year. I've CCed you. I wonder wh

Re: [Mailman-Users] mutiple senders listed

Cameron Camp wrote: >It's a server running only postfix and mailman, with an apache frontend >for mailman. It runs multiple lists, and this is the only problem it >seems to have, so it gets blocked by some recipients. Mailman sends mail with an envelope sender (Return-Path:) of listname-boun...@

Re: [Mailman-Users] mutiple senders listed

It's a server running only postfix and mailman, with an apache frontend for mailman. It runs multiple lists, and this is the only problem it seems to have, so it gets blocked by some recipients. >This doesn't look like a Mailman list. Return-Path: reflects the >envelope sender of the mail and if i

Re: [Mailman-Users] multiple senders listed

Cameron Camp wrote: >my mailing list is working fine, but there are 2 issues: > >1. mail appears to come from 2 addresses, i.e.: >From: nore...@domain.com, r...@www.domain.com > >2. Return Path lists apache user, so: >Return-Path: www-d...@www.domain.com This doesn't look like a Mailman list. R

[Mailman-Users] multiple senders listed

my mailing list is working fine, but there are 2 issues: 1. mail appears to come from 2 addresses, i.e.: From: nore...@domain.com, r...@www.domain.com 2. Return Path lists apache user, so: Return-Path: www-d...@www.domain.com how can I fix these? Thanks, Cameron -

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

Barry Warsaw writes: > Bill the OS vendor of the infected machine. :) In my case that was Linus and Debian, although the fault belonged to the authors of Smail 3.1.100 who documented and parsed an option to deny all forwarding, but didn't implement it. And the primary maintainer of a piece of s

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 23, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: And how does this work when the actual spam message is sent by a malware infected computer belonging to an arguably innocent user and is sent by direct SMTP to the recipient's MX? Bill the OS vendor

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 11:24 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: > Also, such a scheme is fraught with all the problems that currently > affect SPF, DKIM, etc with forwarded mail. It's always amazing to me that Internet e-mail works at all these days, what with spam, viruses, large software companies trying

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

Jan Steinman wrote: > >Besides, individuals wouldn't be doing the payments, their providers >would. The key is SMTP servers -- THEY would be the ones that would >have to handle the accounting. And arguably, they might be the ones >receiving payment anyway, since they are the ones ultimately b

Re: [Mailman-Users] Removing moderation flag via the command line

Joe Auty wrote: >Mark Sapiro wrote: >> Mark Sapiro wrote: >> >> What is the reason why the post is held? Is it "Post by moderated >> member" or some other reason? >> > > >"Post to moderated list" > >Does this change the advice you gave me? No. I was just trying to determine if the script was a

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

On 23 Dec 08, at 10:45, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Jan Steinman writes: I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent if it would reduce spam to near-zero. Only problem is, you'll have to go to the bank and fill out the electronic funds transfer form for each $.1 yo

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

Jan Steinman writes: > I would willingly pay a hundredth of a cent (or so) per email sent if > it would reduce spam to near-zero. Only problem is, you'll have to go to the bank and fill out the electronic funds transfer form for each $.1 you pay. Nanopayments are not a solved problem. --

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

From: Lindsay Haisley On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 10:15 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: Lindsay Haisley wrote: I was intrigued by your comments on the economics of spam... This doesn't directly answer your question (i.e., it's even further OT), but I found it interesting.

Re: [Mailman-Users] Removing moderation flag via the command line

Mark Sapiro wrote: >Joe Auty wrote: >>This does not >>actually remove the flag for this address - posting to the list by this >>address still gets a bounce back saying that moderator approval is required. What is the reason why the post is held? Is it "Post by moderated member" or some other re

Re: [Mailman-Users] Removing moderation flag via the command line

Joe Auty wrote: > >I'm trying to remove the moderator flag on some users via the command >line so that these users are allowed to post to lists where the >moderator flag is set by default. I found this posting from Feb. 2005, >but this doesn't appear to be working for me: > >http://mail.python.org/

Re: [Mailman-Users] running mailman on separate servers (smtp web withdifferent architecture)

Gérard Henry wrote: >actually, my configuration is that smtp and web servers are on the same >architecture (sparc solaris 10). >I'm in the process of migrating the web server to opensolaris x86 >architecture, and i don't find what are the minimal directories that i >have to share between the tw

Re: [Mailman-Users] Only mailto, not http, list-* headers

Bernie Cosell wrote: >Is it possible to configure mailman to ONLY provide the mailto list-* >headers and not the http versions? [at the moment mailman is running on >an internal server that doesn't have a public web interface and it is >just confusing/annoying for the users to have a link that

[Mailman-Users] Removing moderation flag via the command line

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I'm trying to remove the moderator flag on some users via the command line so that these users are allowed to post to lists where the moderator flag is set by default. I found this posting from Feb. 2005, but this doesn't appear to be working f

[Mailman-Users] running mailman on separate servers (smtp web with different architecture)

hello all, actually, my configuration is that smtp and web servers are on the same architecture (sparc solaris 10). I'm in the process of migrating the web server to opensolaris x86 architecture, and i don't find what are the minimal directories that i have to share between the two machines. I

[Mailman-Users] Only mailto, not http, list-* headers

Is it possible to configure mailman to ONLY provide the mailto list-* headers and not the http versions? [at the moment mailman is running on an internal server that doesn't have a public web interface and it is just confusing/annoying for the users to have a link that doesn't work]. thanks!!

Re: [Mailman-Users] Centos + Blue Quartz question - virtual site issue.

Brad, your help is not working - it's broken. package was downloaded by webmin from YUM, correct one for OS. I have set up mailman with great success on Centos 5.2 no other way but by following set-up procedures - i guess there is no other way, is there? Now i'm looking for pointers from some

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

on 12/22/08 11:05 AM, Lindsay Haisley said: I was intrigued by your comments on the economics of spam, which prompted me to introduce pre-filtering on one of my servers, possibly later on both of them. Where did you get the information, in particular, that there's an income flow based on succes

[Mailman-Users] IGNORE --> Re: Domain Keys - Stripping thereof?

Sorry - Way too early, no coffee :-( Mea culpa. //Alif -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin_at_mfn.org 0xpgp_key_mgmt_is_broken-dont_bother "Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public

Re: [Mailman-Users] Posts from listowner address issue

[Even though this is a dead thread, I just saw this and wanted to clarify a point] On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Lindsay Haisley wrote: > Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Posts from listowner address issue > > On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 11:30 -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote: > > listowner address sends a "Maintenan

[Mailman-Users] Domain Keys - Stripping thereof?

I have subscribers complaining, rightfully so, that their provider is dumping any post from a Google user into the spam box for not having a correct Domain Key, i.e., we are not resigning it, nor are we stripping it. Is this possible? Thanks! //Alif -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmi