Moderate mails from owner

newer
Archive Policy not reflecting in...

Henrik Rasmussen

20 Mar 2019 20 Mar '19

2:50 p.m.

I assume this is by design, but is it correct that a list owner, who are not member, will always be allowed to post to the list, even though "Default action to take when a member posts to the list" and "Default action to take when a non-member posts to thelist" are both set to "Hold for moderation"? The owner is set as also moderator, by the way, which seems redundant.

I have a list administrator who would like to be moderated when sending to the list, but there is no Member Options on Owners (nor Moderators).

A workaround may be to create a new account for the owner and let the current owner be member instead of owner, as she will then be moderated.

/Henrik Rasmussen

Show replies by date

Mark Sapiro

20 Mar 20 Mar

6:42 p.m.

On 3/20/19 7:50 AM, Henrik Rasmussen wrote:

...

I assume this is by design, but is it correct that a list owner, who are not member, will always be allowed to post to the list, even though "Default action to take when a member posts to the list" and "Default action to take when a non-member posts to thelist" are both set to "Hold for moderation"? The owner is set as also moderator, by the way, which seems redundant.

I have tried this in multiple ways:

list with no members and owner X, post from X list with member Y and owner X, post from X list with member Y and owner X, moderator X, post from X

In all three cases the post was held with reason "The message is not from a list member" and the expected notices were sent to the owner and poster.

Note that the test for membership includes lots of addresses. The first group are the addresses in places defined by the config sender_headers in the [mailman] section which defaults to

The From: header The envelope sender The Reply-To: header The Sender: header

Then, for each address found, if the address is a member or if the address has a user record and any of the users addresses is a member, the post is considered to be from a member.

However, this is apparently not relevant because both the Member and Non-Member actions are Hold. Thus, the post should be held unless it has an Approved: header with the list's moderator_password attribute if there is one, or it matches a Header filter rule with an accept action.

What are the headers X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: and X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: in the message from the list?

-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

Malcolm Austen

21 Mar 21 Mar

10:02 a.m.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:42:10 -0000, Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net wrote:

...

However, this is apparently not relevant because both the Member and Non-Member actions are Hold. Thus, the post should be held unless it has an Approved: header with the list's moderator_password attribute if there is one, or it matches a Header filter rule with an accept action.

At the risk of getting this really wrong - I have only limited MM3
knowledge - I will ask what is, I fancy, a closely related question ...

My only experience of MM3 is with Ancestry's 'RootsWeb' installation. From
the emails I can see a header "X-Mailman-Version: 3.1.0" but I can't find
anything to identify Postorius which is the only interface I have to the
system.

From symptoms seen and described by others, I have deduced that the
Postorius admin-per-user moderation options of "Default processing" and
"List default" mean that a user may be set (by default on the rootsweb
system!) to use the system default moderation settings rather than the
list default settings.

Are my deductions correct? And if so, could this be the explanation of the
issue detailed in this thread?

Apologies if I'm barking up entirely the wrong tree, Malcolm.

-- Malcolm Austen malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk

Abhilash Raj

4:58 p.m.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019, at 8:47 AM, Malcolm Austen wrote:

...

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:42:10 -0000, Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net wrote:

...
However, this is apparently not relevant because both the Member and Non-Member actions are Hold. Thus, the post should be held unless it has an Approved: header with the list's moderator_password attribute if there is one, or it matches a Header filter rule with an accept action.

At the risk of getting this really wrong - I have only limited MM3
knowledge - I will ask what is, I fancy, a closely related question ...

My only experience of MM3 is with Ancestry's 'RootsWeb' installation. From
the emails I can see a header "X-Mailman-Version: 3.1.0" but I can't find
anything to identify Postorius which is the only interface I have to the
system.

From symptoms seen and described by others, I have deduced that the
Postorius admin-per-user moderation options of "Default processing" and
"List default" mean that a user may be set (by default on the rootsweb
system!) to use the system default moderation settings rather than the
list default settings.

"Default Processing" means the default pipeline defined in

List > Settings > Alter Messages > 'Pipeline' ( in the bottom). This pipeline is system wide and is defined in source code, so it can't be customized by site administrator.

...

Are my deductions correct? And if so, could this be the explanation of the
issue detailed in this thread?

Apologies if I'm barking up entirely the wrong tree, Malcolm.

-- Malcolm Austen malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk

Mailman-users mailing list -- mailman-users@mailman3.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-leave@mailman3.org https://lists.mailman3.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.mailman3.org/

-- thanks, Abhilash Raj (maxking)

Malcolm Austen

22 Mar 22 Mar

1:10 p.m.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:58:45 -0000, Abhilash Raj maxking@asynchronous.in
wrote:

...

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019, at 8:47 AM, Malcolm Austen wrote:

...
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:42:10 -0000, Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net
wrote:

...
However, this is apparently not relevant because both the Member and Non-Member actions are Hold. Thus, the post should be held unless it
has an Approved: header with the list's moderator_password attribute if there is one, or it matches a Header filter rule with an accept
action.

At the risk of getting this really wrong - I have only limited MM3 knowledge - I will ask what is, I fancy, a closely related question ...

My only experience of MM3 is with Ancestry's 'RootsWeb' installation.
From the emails I can see a header "X-Mailman-Version: 3.1.0" but I can't
find anything to identify Postorius which is the only interface I have to the system.

From symptoms seen and described by others, I have deduced that the Postorius admin-per-user moderation options of "Default processing" and "List default" mean that a user may be set (by default on the rootsweb system!) to use the system default moderation settings rather than the list default settings.

"Default Processing" means the default pipeline defined in

Thanks, I will do some (more!) reading.

...

List > Settings > Alter Messages > 'Pipeline' ( in the bottom). This
pipeline is system wide and is defined in source code, so it can't be customized by site administrator.

Unfortunately, that is not available to list-owners on the system
concerned. Ancestry must have removed it.

Malcolm.

-- Malcolm Austen malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk

Mark Sapiro

4:48 p.m.

On 3/22/19 6:10 AM, Malcolm Austen wrote:

...

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:58:45 -0000, Abhilash Raj maxking@asynchronous.in wrote:

...
"Default Processing" means the default pipeline defined in

Thanks, I will do some (more!) reading.

...
List > Settings > Alter Messages > 'Pipeline' ( in the bottom). This pipeline is system wide and is defined in source code, so it can't be customized by site administrator.

Unfortunately, that is not available to list-owners on the system concerned. Ancestry must have removed it.

It wouldn't help you anyway. All it shows are the choices 'default posting pipeline', 'default owner pipeline' and 'virgin', not the contents. See https://mailman.readthedocs.io/en/latest/build/lib/mailman/app/docs/pipeline... for info on pipelines.

Also, when we're talking about Default Processing in the context of moderation, we're not really talking about pipelines; we're talking about rule chains. See https://mailman.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/mailman/rules/docs/rules.html and https://mailman.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/mailman/chains/docs/moderation..... This latter doc mentions 'defer' which is another name for 'Default Processing'.

Also in the latter doc in the example under "Anne’s post to the mailing list runs through the incoming runner’s default built-in chain. No rules hit and so the message is accepted." you'll see

Hits: Misses: dmarc-mitigation no-senders approved emergency loop banned-address member-moderation nonmember-moderation administrivia implicit-dest max-recipients max-size news-moderation no-subject suspicious-header

The misses are the rules processed in the normal chain in order. When you set a (non-)member's moderation to Accept, at the appropriate (non)member-moderation rule, the rest of the chain is skipped and the message is accepted. If the(non-)member's moderation is Default Processing, that rule passes, but the remaining

administrivia
implicit-dest
max-recipients
max-size
news-moderation
no-subject
suspicious-header

rules are checked before the message is accepted.

-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

Mark Sapiro

21 Mar 21 Mar

5:27 p.m.

On 3/21/19 3:02 AM, Malcolm Austen wrote:

...

My only experience of MM3 is with Ancestry's 'RootsWeb' installation. From the emails I can see a header "X-Mailman-Version: 3.1.0" but I can't find anything to identify Postorius which is the only interface I have to the system.

Isn't there a footer at the bottom of wach page with something like:

Postorius Documentation • GNU Mailman • Postorius Version 1.2.5

...

From symptoms seen and described by others, I have deduced that the Postorius admin-per-user moderation options of "Default processing" and "List default" mean that a user may be set (by default on the rootsweb system!) to use the system default moderation settings rather than the list default settings.

New (non-)members always have Moderation set to List default. This means their posts are governed by the applicable Settings -> Message Acceptance settings.

Setting a user's Moderation to Default Processing means that users posts will not be held/rejected/discarded/accepted immediately based on "Default action to take when a (non-)member posts to the list", but additional checks will not be bypassed. See https://mailman.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/mailman/rules/docs/rules.html.

...

Are my deductions correct? And if so, could this be the explanation of the issue detailed in this thread?

Setting a user's Moderation to Default Processing (or Accept) would bypass the list defaults and could be the explanation of this issue.

When the non-member owner first posts to the list that address becomes a non-member of the list. I.e. it is in the roster of known non-members of the list and that non-member record could have had its Moderation set to Accept or Default Processing at some point which would explain why the posts are accepted.

-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

Malcolm Austen

22 Mar 22 Mar

1:17 p.m.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:27:01 -0000, Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net wrote:

...

On 3/21/19 3:02 AM, Malcolm Austen wrote:

...
My only experience of MM3 is with Ancestry's 'RootsWeb' installation. From the emails I can see a header "X-Mailman-Version: 3.1.0" but I can't find anything to identify Postorius which is the only interface I have to the system.

Isn't there a footer at the bottom of wach page with something like: Postorius Documentation • GNU Mailman • Postorius Version 1.2.5

Unfortunately not Mark, Ancestry/RootsWeb have a history of tailoring
Mailman heavily - and then deciding they don't have the resources to
update to a new version :-(

All there is on https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/ is:

RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb
community. Learn more.

...

...
From symptoms seen and described by others, I have deduced that the Postorius admin-per-user moderation options of "Default processing" and "List default" mean that a user may be set (by default on the rootsweb system!) to use the system default moderation settings rather than the list default settings.

New (non-)members always have Moderation set to List default. This means their posts are governed by the applicable Settings -> Message Acceptance settings.

I suspect that everyone on the rootsweb system was mistakenly set to
'Default processing' when they were bulk-imported from Mailman2.

...

Setting a user's Moderation to Default Processing means that users posts will not be held/rejected/discarded/accepted immediately based on "Default action to take when a (non-)member posts to the list", but additional checks will not be bypassed. See https://mailman.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/mailman/rules/docs/rules.html.

I will read that, and whatever else I can.

...

...
Are my deductions correct? And if so, could this be the explanation of the issue detailed in this thread?

Setting a user's Moderation to Default Processing (or Accept) would bypass the list defaults and could be the explanation of this issue.

When the non-member owner first posts to the list that address becomes a non-member of the list. I.e. it is in the roster of known non-members of the list and that non-member record could have had its Moderation set to Accept or Default Processing at some point which would explain why the posts are accepted.

Thanks for the explanation and link, Malcolm.

-- Malcolm Austen malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk

Mark Sapiro

5:12 p.m.

On 3/22/19 6:17 AM, Malcolm Austen wrote:

...

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:27:01 -0000, Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net wrote:

...
New (non-)members always have Moderation set to List default. This means their posts are governed by the applicable Settings -> Message Acceptance settings.

I suspect that everyone on the rootsweb system was mistakenly set to 'Default processing' when they were bulk-imported from Mailman2.

It wasn't a mistake. When I said "New (non-)members always have Moderation set to List default." I was thinking only of members being added to a list in any of the 'usual' ways, not members imported from Mailman 2.1.

When members are imported from Mailman 2.1 by the 'mailman import21' command, the MM 3 moderation setting for the member is set to Default Processing if the MM 2.1 member is not moderated and otherwise is set based on the MM 2.1 member_moderation_action setting.

-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

Henrik Rasmussen

8 Apr 8 Apr

11:44 a.m.

I finally received the right mail from the user. I am sorry for the delay.

The mail from the list does actually not contain any X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: nor X-Mailman-Rule-Hits:

Received: from EUR02-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.78.0.174) by P2KITHUB04W.unicph.domain (172.28.3.167) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:51:56 +0200 Received: from HE1PR0402CA0016.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:d0::26) by VI1PR04MB4158.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:803:46::33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.17; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:51:54 +0000 Received: from HE1EUR02FT050.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7e05::200) by HE1PR0402CA0016.outlook.office365.com (2603:10a6:3:d0::26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.16 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:51:54 +0000 Received: from listqw.example.com (192.38.XXX.X) by HE1EUR02FT050.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.11.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.20.1750.20 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:51:53 +0000 Received: from [172.19.199.2] (mailman-core.mailman_mailman [172.19.199.2]) by lists.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B9D7E94EFEF; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:51:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay.example.com (gateway [172.19.199.1]) by lists.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE6D7E94EFEE for Mylist@lists.example.com; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr140138.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.14.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailrelay.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 755B82B6E for Mylist@lists.example.com; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:51:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from VI1PR04CA0126.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:803:f0::24) by AM6PR04MB4152.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:209:4e::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.13; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:36:17 +0000 Received: from VE1EUR02FT025.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7e06::207) by VI1PR04CA0126.outlook.office365.com (2603:10a6:803:f0::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.15 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:36:17 +0000 Received: from sepo4.example.com (192.38.YYY.YY) by VE1EUR02FT025.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.12.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.20.1750.20 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:36:16 +0000 Received: from 10.78.0.165 ([10.78.0.165]) by sepo4.example.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.2-1) with SMTP ID 275 for Mylist@lists.example.com; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:36:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from P2KITMBX06WC03.unicph.domain ([fe80::3952:c6b2:a71f:a1de]) by P2KITHUB04W.unicph.domain ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:36:14 +0200 From: Nyhedsbrev til medlemmer Mylist@lists.example.com To: "Mylist@lists.example.com" Mylist@lists.example.com Subject: [Listname] Nye arrangementer i praksis Thread-Topic: Nye arrangementer i praksis Thread-Index: AdTq82MCI8LJ6Ah9TTyCBQijzpmbkg== Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:36:13 +0200 Message-ID: 250E794B36C1E646AF3D81E1F15348C79DA68EA8@P2KITMBX06WC03.unicph.domain List-Help: mailto:Mylist-request@lists.example.com?subject=help List-Subscribe: mailto:mylist-join@lists.example.com List-Unsubscribe: mailto:Mylist-leave@lists.example.com Reply-To: Mylist Mylist@external.example.com, "Mylist@lists.example.com" Mylist@lists.example.com Accept-Language: en-US, da-DK Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: P2KITHUB04W.unicph.domain X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: TempError (protection.outlook.com: error in processing during lookup of ant.example: DNS Timeout) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_250E794B36C1E646AF3D81E1F15348C79DA68EA8P2KITMBX06WC03u_" MIME-Version: 1.0

/Henrik

Mark Sapiro

6:28 p.m.

On 4/8/19 4:44 AM, Henrik Rasmussen wrote:

...

I finally received the right mail from the user. I am sorry for the delay.

The mail from the list does actually not contain any X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: nor X-Mailman-Rule-Hits:

This is quite strange. There are no 'X-Mailman' headers which might be exchange removing all 'X-' headers other than its own, but while there are some 'List-' headers, there is no 'List-Id:' header which Mailman always adds.

Can you try to get an example message from the list that was sent to a non-outlook/exchange user. Perhaps you could subscribe a gmail or other non-microsoft managed address to the list. I note the MX for your email domain is ku-dk.mail.protection.outlook.com, so that probably won't do.

However, one thing to check is the list's Header filters settings. Is there a filter there that could match the owner's email with action accept?

-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

Henrik Rasmussen

30 Apr 30 Apr

8:04 a.m.

@Mark: I am really sorry for the delayed responses, but this is a very low frequency list. I have subscribed to the list using a non-Microsoft address to see the outcome.

The mails does indeed contain 'X-Mailman' headers.

X-Mailman-Rule-Hits:nonmember-moderation X-Mailman-Rule-Misses:dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation

Received:from pv33p00im-smtpin029.me.com ([17.142.180.55]) by ms59023.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.3.20180628 64bit (built Jun 28 2018)) with ESMTP id 0PQP006Z3QWC9C00@ms59023.mac.com for [RECIPIENT]@icloud.com; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:15:05 +0000 (GMT)Original-recipient:rfc822;[RECIPIENT]@icloud.comReturn-path:<[LISTNAME]-bounces@lists.example.com>Received:from listsgw.example.com (listsgw.example.com [Mailman_server_IP]) by pv33p00im-smtpin029.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6A7AA00A1; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:14:33 +0000 (UTC)Authentication-results:pv33p00im-dmarcmilter007.me.com; dmarc=pass header.from=lists.example.comx-dmarc-info:pass=pass; dmarc-policy=quarantine; s=r1; d=r1x-dmarc-policy:v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc@recipient.example.com; ruf=mailto:dmarc@recipient.example.com; fo=0; pct=100;Authentication-results:pv33p00im-dkimmilter017.me.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=listsgw.example.com header.i=@listsgw.example.com header.b=j141qn/+Authentication-results:pv33p00im-dkimmilter017.me.com; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=alumni.onmicrosoft.com header.i=@alumni.onmicrosoft.com header.b=grPO7MmnAuthentication-results:pv33p00im-spfmilter004.me.com; spf=pass (pv33p00im-spfmilter004.me.com: domain of [LISTNAME]-bounces@lists.example.com designates Mailman_server_IP as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=[LISTNAME]-bounces@lists.example.comReceived-SPF:pass (pv33p00im-spfmilter004.me.com: domain of [LISTNAME]-bounces@lists.example.com designates Mailman_server_IP as permitted sender) receiver=pv33p00im-spfmilter004.me.com; client-ip=Mailman_server_IP; helo=listsgw.example.com; envelope-from=[LISTNAME]-bounces@lists.example.comReceived:from [172.19.199.2] (mailman-core.mailman_mailman [172.19.199.2]) by listsgw.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340CC7E957309; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:14:31 +0000 (UTC)DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=listsgw.example.com; s=default; t=1556525671; bh=ww4gMnwqRZY67m/xVRWkBQuazr4mRYHzchCQ6K2m9h4=; h=To:Date:From:Subject; b=j141qn/+o3qH0vdXI7LJM8sXeRtU7towrfrgMw7AvvDmjStpx5qsNzhi+IUs5X4it WAY+1pTh/r7BLO8fvhugzGcyCwPmUGbWS9t5jXsxrX/ajXK1BuVLS2dZ+Z6NAMvyXp vTWJkm0O1Nr9F4v7zAERXr03fL6YAfEazIPFE3KE=Received:from smtpgw1.dep.example.com (smtpgw1.dep.example.com [192.168.119.166]) by listsgw.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE107E957309 for <[LISTNAME]@lists.example.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:14:28 +0000 (UTC)Received:from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr20112.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtpgw1.dep.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3703471 for <[LISTNAME]@lists.example.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:14:27 +0200 (CEST)DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alumni.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-senderdep-ku-dk; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=5+unAC8+m0RkcnXL9hs7ctk8IIOfVXJH6H0bQgqvSZE=; b=grPO7MmnBGT73bNK3J4CvKV5tl+hc/HCUUWwu1Hix/A/cssQ4fbsPo6Q6iH56roSJTCbX644J73WnRESTbQFa7tIK4sE2eNhaT0laT2hIfH1Kd1lEEa2jGiBSbEULincAPicAg3zflzAl8UGDUzRwaeBGZMk8BeKBPmBEO2sINU=Received:from AM6PR0402CA0001.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:209::14) by DB7PR04MB5355.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:37::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1835.12; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:14:25 +0000Received:from HE1EUR02FT049.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7e05::200) by AM6PR0402CA0001.outlook.office365.com (2603:10a6:209::14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.1835.12 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:14:25 +0000Authentication-results:spf=pass (sender IP is 192.168.124.333) smtp.mailfrom=senderdep.example.com; lists.example.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.example.com; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=senderdep.example.com;Received-SPF:Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of senderdep.example.com designates 192.168.124.333 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=192.168.124.333; helo=secsrv.example.com;Received:from secsrv.example.com (192.168.124.333) by HE1EUR02FT049.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.11.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.20.1835.13 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:14:24 +0000Received:from 10.78.0.165 ([10.78.0.165]) by secsrv.example.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.2-1) with SMTP ID 912 for <[LISTNAME]@lists.example.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:14:24 +0200 (CEST)Received:from P2KITMBX06WC03.unicph.domain ([fe80::3952:c6b2:a71f:a1de]) by P1KITHUB03W.unicph.domain ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:14:23 +0200To:"[LISTNAME]@lists.example.com" <[LISTNAME]@lists.example.com>Thread-topic:Monographic Happy Hour 9/5Thread-index:AdT+Yp9gXYSK+dAvRmej7QI54nGMpA==Date:Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:14:23 +0000Message-id:250E794B36C1E646AF3D81E1F15348C79DA81F9B@P2KITMBX06WC03.unicph.domainAccept-Language:en-US, da-DKContent-language:en-USX-MS-Has-Attach:yesX-Originating-IP:[10.78.0.174]Content-type:multipart/mixed; boundary=_006_250E794B36C1E646AF3D81E1F15348C79DA81F9BP2KITMBX06WC03u_MIME-version:1.0X-EOPAttributedMessage:0X-Forefront-Antispam-Report:CIP:192.168.124.333;IPV:NLI;CTRY:DK;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(346002)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(136003)(2980300002)(189003)(199004)(6306002)(16586007)(7736002)(69596002)(37786003)(186003)(316002)(786003)(8676002)(2501003)(861006)(6916009)(5024004)(26005)(5660300002)(568964002)(81166006)(81156014)(476003)(54556002)(3672435006)(9686003)(99936001)(126002)(33656002)(55016002)(486006)(236005)(53936002)(54896002)(235185007)(40036005)(606006)(97736004)(8936002)(106002)(84326002)(2351001)(2906002)(72206003)(966005)(102836004)(74482002)(2476003)(478600001)(733005)(63106013)(28085005)(68736007)(6116002)(790700001)(356004)(15974865002)(66576008)(70206006)(70586007)(86362001)(71190400001)(21480400003)(55846006)(5640700003)(80792005)(3846002)(7696005)(336012);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:DB7PR04MB5355;H:secsrv.example.com;FPR:;SPF:Pass;LANG:en;PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent;MX:1;A:1;X-MS-PublicTrafficType:EmailX-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id:b2819113-4537-44c2-9ca3-08d6cc7ab11bX-Microsoft-Antispam:BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(4709054)(2017052603328)(49563074)(7193020);SRVR:DB7PR04MB5355;X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic:DB7PR04MB5355:X-MS-Exchange-PUrlCount:2X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS:DB7PR04MB535511C5C14359DEA2FEF0F1E3390@DB7PR04MB5355.eurprd04.prod.outlook.comX-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers:OLM:7219;X-Forefront-PRVS:0022134A87X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck:1X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info:yYMmtZE5qXSLvza/C4Q/Igppo76GNqMKj55MveWqmPVN6GG1tLjgK7BMMGO7Rp92RoMuiTwpy99xVJ5PwwZAnD0SABHcI7JZvwAY2hf0HuJii6HhFLfKtylgrRtEYnWHFSHQeIU+2GRoQX98EztZdIyHXc3PD9gkunHLJsheTkBch4vo++1clyeWq9JGiRVZtil/5IhOe+s2XtuP1YLO1KwPk+1xqCfBNNaVATPLhdDeDsGB7mULzXiB+ztn3DT6luKukl/2K4jmSZG/W/JB55POksEIlFZl1f1bY/6bCVNLwt+vw1tzPSGlq6Zska59VJk3xJPEIHbIoAhHfHV4WQCTxixXrOUXu/tmnYZm6If2WpEh3liz/76FuI7/J/SSMCnFHnatuSxZydMGtQ0xw8IvA3rw6xXMYuet1l9a7zI=X-OriginatorOrg:senderdep.example.comX-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime:29 Apr 2019 08:14:24.7936 (UTC)X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id:b2819113-4537-44c2-9ca3-08d6cc7ab11bX-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id:a3927f91-cda1-4696-af89-8c9f1ceffa91X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp:TenantId=a3927f91-cda1-4696-af89-8c9f1ceffa91;Ip=[192.168.124.333];Helo=[secsrv.example.com]X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader:HybridOnPremX-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped:DB7PR04MB5355Message-ID-Hash:3KNSRQCKXHV36TBBMXYFQDCFTIMNIDUBX-Message-ID-Hash:3KNSRQCKXHV36TBBMXYFQDCFTIMNIDUBX-MailFrom:[LISTNAME]@senderdep.example.comX-Mailman-Rule-Hits:nonmember-moderationX-Mailman-Rule-Misses:dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderationFrom:Nyhedsbrev til [LISTNAME]s medlemmer <[LISTNAME]@lists.example.com>X-Mailman-Version:3.2.0Precedence:listReply-to:[LISTNAME]@senderdep.example.comSubject:=?iso-8859-1?q?=5B[LISTNAME]=5D_?= Monographic Happy Hour 9/5List-Id:Nyhedsbrev til [LISTNAME]s medlemmer <[LISTNAME].lists.example.com>List-Help:mailto:[LISTNAME]-request@lists.example.com?subject=helpList-Post:mailto:[LISTNAME]@lists.example.comList-Subscribe:mailto:[LISTNAME]-join@lists.example.comList-Unsubscribe:mailto:[LISTNAME]-leave@lists.example.comX-MANTSH:1TEIXWlwZGVoaGkNHB0tNT0ReQ0QeGxsaEQpMQxcbHQQbHhgEGxMfBBkYEBseGh8 aEQpMWRcYGhIRCllNF2RFRE8RCllJFxwfcR4GGRh3BhsaHQYaBhoGHxwGGRpxGxAadwYaBgcfG gYaBhoGGgYacRoQGncGGhEKWV4XbGx5EQpDThdtBXJGQBhbbVJNW20fZmhNQh1daEdeRltDSxl EXF58QhEKWFwXGQQaBB4aB0wbT0kSEhhIBRsdBBseGAQbExIEHhgQGx4aHxoRCl5ZF34FbEltE QpNXBcbGxkRCkxaF2xtXWt7EQpMRhdFRWkRCkNaFxsTGAQZEgQbGB4EHhEKQl4XGxEKRFgXHhE KRF4XGBEKQkYXY2NvaXlFeWVFGVwRCkJHF2ZdeXx6cFlLEmd7EQpCXBcbEQpCSxdnX0IdXn5ef 0sTThEKQkkXaX5ORh9vE1geBX8RCkJFF2ZmY1lDHG96QE1sEQpCThdpfk5GH28TWB4FfxEKQkw XZhIZSXBkREFeWkIRCkJsF25jRn9BQUlARE1TEQpCQBdhSWMYaW5Jc1MecxEKTV4XGxEKcGcXb 3J7eWUdTB1MRU0QGRoRCnBsF2ZjcEtgXlx5W0d5EBkaEQptfhcbEQpYTRdLEQ==X-CLX-Shades:NoneX-CLX-UShades:NoneX-CLX-Score:208X-CLX-UnSpecialScore:NoneX-CLX-Spam:falseX-Proofpoint-Virus-Version:vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-04-29_04:,, signatures=0X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details:rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=208 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=611 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1812120000 definitions=main-1904290061

Mark Sapiro

9:13 p.m.

On 4/30/19 1:04 AM, Henrik Rasmussen wrote:

...

@Mark: I am really sorry for the delayed responses, but this is a very low frequency list. I have subscribed to the list using a non-Microsoft address to see the outcome.

The mails does indeed contain 'X-Mailman' headers.

X-Mailman-Rule-Hits:nonmember-moderation X-Mailman-Rule-Misses:dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation

It looks like the message hit the nonmember-moderation rule and was accepted. This can happen in a few ways:

First we determine the senders. Assuming the config is default, these are the addresses in From:, the envelope sender, and addresses in Reply-To: and Sender: if any.

The only address I can see in the message headers that hasn't been altered by Mailman is the From: and maybe Reply-To: which you have munged to [LISTNAME]@senderdep.example.com.

Anyway that unmunged address and possibly others from the original incoming message will be users of the list with role nonmember.

Now each of those (possibly only the one) nonmember(s) is checked for a moderation action. Since the message does not appear to have been held or processed through rules beyond nonmember-moderation, we presumably found a moderation action of accept.

This can happen in a few ways., If this list was originally imported from Mailman 2.1 by the 'mailman import21' command, there may be a legacy accept_these_nonmembers attribute for the list. If so, and if a nonmember sender address matches an address or pattern in the list's accept_these_nonmembers, the message will be accepted. Otherwise if the moderation_action for a nonmember sender address is accept the message will be accepted.

You need to check the list's accept_these_nonmembers attribute and the non-member address's moderation action.

If you have recent Postorius, you can see nonmembers and their options from the 'users' -> Non-members view.

In any case, you can do something like

mailman shell -l list.example.com Welcome to the GNU Mailman shell The variable 'm' is the list.example.com mailing list

...

...
...
m.accept_these_nonmembers returns a possibly empty list

Then for the sender addresses

...

...
...
memb = m.nonmembers.get_member('sender address') memb.moderation_action

This may return

in which case you may want

...

...
...
memb.moderation_action = m.default_nonmember_action

-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

Henrik Rasmussen

2 May 2 May

9:49 a.m.

Mark Sapiro wrote:

...

This can happen in a few ways., If this list was originally imported from Mailman 2.1 by the 'mailman import21' command, there may be a legacy accept_these_nonmembers attribute for the list. If so, and if a This makes sense. The list was in fact imported from Mailman 2.1.

...

You need to check the list's accept_these_nonmembers attribute and the non-member address's moderation action.

If you have recent Postorius, you can see nonmembers and their options from the 'users' -> Non-members view. I currently have Postorius 1.2.2 so I don't have it yet.

...

mailman shell -l list.example.com The sender is in the list of accept_these_nonmembers, however the command memb.moderation_action = m.default_nonmember_action doesn't seem to remove it from accept_these_nonmembers.

bash-4.3# mailman shell -l [LISTNAME].lists.example.com Welcome to the GNU Mailman shell The variable 'm' is the [LISTNAME].lists.example.com mailing list

...

...
...
m.accept_these_nonmembers ['listadmin@senderdep.example.com'] memb = m.nonmembers.get_member('listadmin@senderdep.example.com') memb.moderation_action memb.moderation_action = m.default_nonmember_action m.accept_these_nonmembers ['listadmin@senderdep.example.com']

-- Henrik

Mark Sapiro

12:22 p.m.

On 5/2/19 2:49 AM, Henrik Rasmussen wrote:

...

The sender is in the list of accept_these_nonmembers, however the command memb.moderation_action = m.default_nonmember_action doesn't seem to remove it from accept_these_nonmembers.

That suggestion was only if the user's non-member role had moderation_action=accept. It may have in which case you fixed that part, but you still have to remove it from accept_these_nonmembers. In shell

m.accept_these_nonmembers.remove('entry to remove')

-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

Henrik Rasmussen

7 May 7 May

8:54 a.m.

Do I have to make a commit or something? Even m.accept_these_nonmembers.remove removes the member from the list, it is right back when I return to the Mailman shell:

...

bash-4.3# mailman shell -l [LISTNAME].lists.example.com Welcome to the GNU Mailman shell The variable 'm' is the [LISTNAME].lists.example.com mailing list

...
...
...
m.accept_these_nonmembers ['listadmin(a)senderdep.example.com'] m.accept_these_nonmembers.remove('listadmin(a)senderdep.example.com') m.accept_these_nonmembers [] quit() # bash-4.3# mailman shell -l [LISTNAME].lists.example.com Welcome to the GNU Mailman shell The variable 'm' is the [LISTNAME].lists.example.com mailing list m.accept_these_nonmembers ['listadmin(a)senderdep.example.com']

Mark Sapiro

12:53 p.m.

On 5/7/19 1:54 AM, Henrik Rasmussen wrote:

...

Do I have to make a commit or something? Even m.accept_these_nonmembers.remove removes the member from the list, it is right back when I return to the Mailman shell:

...
bash-4.3# mailman shell -l [LISTNAME].lists.example.com Welcome to the GNU Mailman shell The variable 'm' is the [LISTNAME].lists.example.com mailing list

...
...
...
m.accept_these_nonmembers ['listadmin(a)senderdep.example.com'] m.accept_these_nonmembers.remove('listadmin(a)senderdep.example.com') m.accept_these_nonmembers [] quit()

There are potentially two issues here. First, the entire interaction is in the context of a database transaction and quit() exits without committing the transaction. abort() will also abandon the changes but not exit. commit() will commit the changes and not exit, and control-D will implicitly commit and exit.

Thus, you need to exit with control-D or commit() before quit().

However, there is another potential issue and that is the one described at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37310770/sqlalchemy-committing-pickle-ty.... What this says is the way the *_these_nonmembers attributes are defined in the SQLAlchemy data model results in changes due to mutating the list (which .remove() does) aren't recognized. See https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/merge_requests/505.

I think in your case, if you just do

m.accept_these_nonmembers = [] commit()

and then look at m.accept_these_nonmembers again which will show you what's in the database, you'll see that you have what you want.

-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

1809

Age (days ago)

1857

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

16 comments

4 participants

participants (4)

Abhilash Raj
Henrik Rasmussen
Malcolm Austen
Mark Sapiro

Moderate mails from owner

tags

participants (4)