[Mailman-Users] Alternate Port question

Hi, I'm using Mailman v2.1.5. Originally lists were created using port 8181 as the default port. Later port 80 was freed up and I reset (so I thought) everything to port 80. However, whenever something is went out on the list, it still continues to show port 8181 as the port. Any though

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

Jan Steinman writes: > Perhaps I know just enough about the underpinnings of the Internet to > see the possibilities, rather than the impossibilities. Sorry if my > examples were impractical, but I continue to dis-believe that it would > be impossible to implement a system whereby spam c

Re: [Mailman-Users] mailman mailing list members limit?

on 1/3/09 12:41 PM, abcloan...@yahoo.com said: I'd like to know if there's a limit on how many members I can have? See FAQ 1.15 in the Mailman FAQ Wiki at . I have around 2,400 members and when I send an e-mail only few get it. T

Re: [Mailman-Users] {Disarmed} Re: Automatic bounce processing; listname-bouncesvs. listname-bounces+XXXX

On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 17:11 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: > John Wesley Simpson Hibbs wrote: > > > >I just now appended (per your advise) the following to mm_cfg.py: > > > > VERP_PASSWORD_REMINDERS = Yes > > VERP_PERSONALIZED_DELIVERIES = Yes > > VERP_CONFIRMATIONS = Yes > > > >I then did

Re: [Mailman-Users] Automatic bounce processing; listname-bounces vs. listname-bounces+XXXX

On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 08:36 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: > John Wesley Simpson Hibbs wrote: > > >Our mailing lists had been processing bounces correctly for quite some > >time. > > > >For some reason though, this has stopped functioning properly. > > > Did you just upgrade to Mailman 2.1.11? No..

[Mailman-Users] mailman mailing list members limit?

Hello, I'd like to know if there's a limit on how many members I can have? I have around 2,400 members and when I send an e-mail only few get it.   Thank you, Jen -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

on 1/4/09 2:44 PM, Jan Steinman said: Perhaps I know just enough about the underpinnings of the Internet to see the possibilities, rather than the impossibilities. Sorry if my examples were impractical, but I continue to dis-believe that it would be impossible to implement a system whereby spa

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

on 1/4/09 11:15 AM, J.A. Terranson said: Hascash is another of the various forms of tarpitting, which also does not stop anyone, but it does slow it down, and every little bit helps. This subject is off-topic for this list. Please consult the archives of spam-l and the ASRG, and if you still

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

on 1/4/09 7:27 AM, Rich Kulawiec said: This idiotic idea resurfaces periodically (see "hashcash" and other similar products of the wishful thinking of clueless newbies [1]). It is one of the very stupidest anti-spam ideas -- and there's a lot of competition for that "honor", unfortunately. [2]

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

From: Rich Kulawiec On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 02:52:21PM -0800, Jan Steinman wrote: No, it is based upon the idea that a system could be implemented whereby it would be impossible to avoid the payment. This idiotic idea... the wishful thinking of clueless newbies... one of the very stupides

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 02:56:40PM -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote: > You're argument boils down to "it's not wholly effective, [snip] Actually, my primary argument is that it has/would have zero effect. There's no point in deploying something that the enemy completely defeated years ago. My seconda

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

Also myt last comment, unless a listowner somehow believes this is appropos for *this* list. You're argument boils down to "it's not wholly effective, and it's super easy for the sspammer to overwhelm, so don't bother using it". The same is true of every blocklist, blacklist, firewall, tarpit,

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

On 3 Jan 09, at 18:23, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Mark Sapiro wrote: That's not an apt analogy. The issue here is not whether a system can be developed that would require mail delivery to be paid for. The See: http://www.hashcash.org/ So it seems one way of guaranteeing tha

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:15:19AM -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote: > I realise I may well be just another "stupid newbie" in your eyes, so > please explain why something that can enforce a fixed amount of work to > each and every transaction on the SENDER's side is a bad idea by itself. I've covere

Re: [Mailman-Users] Rejecting on size before content-filters

Bernie Cosell wrote: > >Another dumb newbie question: as I understand it, if I edit these into my >mm_cfg.py it will affect the processing of *ALL* of the mailing lists, >not just the one I want the reversed order on. That happens to be OK at >the moment, but feels wrong -- is there a way to ma

Re: [Mailman-Users] Warnings from senddigests

Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >The only strange thing I now notice is that even if the digest consists >of messages that were all originally in iso-8859-1 encoding, the digest >is in usascii, with question marks substituted for non-usascii >characters. Is it necessary to use MIME digests in order to get

Re: [Mailman-Users] Rejecting on size before content-filters

On 4 Jan 2009 at 9:08, Mark Sapiro wrote: > First let me say for the benefit of others reading this, that in > general, moving SpamDetect after Hold is not a good idea. However, in > your case, as described in your immediately prior post, where all your > header_filter_rules actions are 'hold' any

Re: [Mailman-Users] Warnings from senddigests

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 08:43:31 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: >It is still not clear to me if this will also fix the > >>List: jdtest: problem processing /home/mailman/lists/jdtest/digest.mbox: >>iso-8859-15 > >issue. It may or may not. You can try running > > cron/senddigests -l jdtest > >manually as th

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

> [1] Hashcash fails on inspection because attackers control vastly more > computing resources than defenders, by several orders of magnitude. The idea behind Hascash is *not* that it will *stop* the flow: it, by itself, most certainly will not. However, no successful security strategy relies

Re: [Mailman-Users] Rejecting on size before content-filters

Bernie Cosell wrote: > >I think I see what to do. Am I correct that this would work [I'm a Perl >guy, and I don't know much python at the moment]: > >GLOBAL_PIPELINE.remove('SpamDetect') >GLOBAL_PIPELINE.insert(GLOBAL_PIPELINE.index('Hold'), 'SpamDetect') Not quite. First let me say for the be

Re: [Mailman-Users] Rejecting on size before content-filters

On 4 Jan 2009 at 8:18, Mark Sapiro wrote: > Bernie Cosell wrote: > > >Is it possible to change the testing-order so that the list size limit is > >tested [and generates an appropriate reject] *before* the content filters > >are processed? > > > This is the way it's normally done. The usual re

Re: [Mailman-Users] Warnings from senddigests

Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >Problem found and solved: Good! It is still not clear to me if this will also fix the >List: jdtest: problem processing /home/mailman/lists/jdtest/digest.mbox: >iso-8859-15 issue. It may or may not. You can try running cron/senddigests -l jdtest manually as the mailm

Re: [Mailman-Users] Rejecting on size before content-filters

On 4 Jan 2009 at 8:18, Mark Sapiro wrote: > Bernie Cosell wrote: > > >Is it possible to change the testing-order so that the list size limit is > >tested [and generates an appropriate reject] *before* the content filters > >are processed? > > > This is the way it's normally done. The usual re

Re: [Mailman-Users] Warnings from senddigests

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:48:40 -0800, Mark Sapiro wrote: >Try to cd to the misc/ subdirectory of the directory that you unpacked >and configured in and run > >make install-packages Problem found and solved: I had run "make" as root, but "make install" as "mailman", and "make install-packages", whic

Re: [Mailman-Users] Rejecting on size before content-filters

Bernie Cosell wrote: >Is it possible to change the testing-order so that the list size limit is >tested [and generates an appropriate reject] *before* the content filters >are processed? This is the way it's normally done. The usual request is to do it the other way around. See, e.g.,

[Mailman-Users] Rejecting on size before content-filters

Is it possible to change the testing-order so that the list size limit is tested [and generates an appropriate reject] *before* the content filters are processed? [I just ran into one that was nearly double the maximum size but got kicked out because it also ran afoul of one of the content fil

Re: [Mailman-Users] The economics of spam

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 02:52:21PM -0800, Jan Steinman wrote: > No, it is based upon the idea that a system could be implemented whereby > it would be impossible to avoid the payment. It can't. This idiotic idea resurfaces periodically (see "hashcash" and other similar products of the wishful th