Search results for "Postorius" - Mailman-users

Re: hello， Discussion on how to subscribe to the mailing list

by Stephen J. Turnbull

Mark Sapiro writes: > On 1/16/23 18:55, 朱超 wrote: > > Hi, When I subscribe the email list in Subscription Policy is > > confirm, Some problems happen in here： > > 1.Some mail mua reject send the confirm the message, because the > > length of recipient is too long. for exmaple: > > requirements-confirm+9605556e0b35a5da280c1de0d34a3e6f770f8ea5@domain, > > and the mail mua reject to modify about this. > > The default English template says in part: > > Before you can start using GNU Mailman at this site, you must first > confirm that this is your email address. You can do this by replying to > this message. > > Or you should include the following line -- and only the following > line -- in a message to $request_email: > > confirm $token > > I.e. It gives an alternative method if `reply` doesn't work. You can > provide a custom version of this template with different wording if you > think you can improve it. The problem is the reply address, though. Changing the template to suggest only the "confirm $token" in body method doesn't help people who hit R expecting that should work, especially since many "user fiendly" (misspelling intentional) MUAs don't display the address. Avoiding that requires code changes, I guess? > > 2.It is inconvenient for users to use. Many people will > > mistakenly think that after clicking the subscribe button, it > > will be successful, and they will not process the email. > step, you can set Subscription Policy to Open, but then anyone can > maliciously subscribe third parties to the list. *Please* do not do this if your server is exposed to the Internet. There are bots that search for such servers, and sell lists of them to people who want to DOS mailboxes. You may find yourself banned across the Internet. The only real alternative to confirmation is approval by moderators. I believe Mailman 3 offers that alternative as Mailman 2 did, can't check at the moment. > > Regarding the discussion on the subscription method of the > > mailing list, should we consider optimizing the subscription > > method of the mailing list, for example: > > 1. use the method of sending a verification code to subscribe by > > email，When you receive the verification code sent by the > > mailing list and fill it in again, you can subscribe > > successfully。 > > How is this different from the present method. Just wording. I think they are thinking of the "invite" option that was provided in Mailman 2 mass subscribe (again, I think Mailman 3 retains it but I never ever used it so I don't recall for sure). But it doesn't make sense for a user-initiated interaction. > If you want, you can make > a custom template and include something like: > > Alternatively, you can confirm by going to the URL > > https://www.example.com/mailman3/lists/$list_id/confirm/?token=$token If I understand the OP's PoV correctly, I think I would change the list information page to say "Send a personal invitation to join the list to [email address here]. If you aren't a subscriber, you can invite yourself." And change the word "confirm" in the confirmation template to "subscribe". > We don't include that in the default template because Mailman core > doesn't know if you even have a web UI or how to access it if you > do. We should fix that, at least if the web interface is Postorius (wishlist, assigned to me): https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/-/issues/1055 @mark https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/-/issues/901 Maybe we can close this? I'm not sure why it was left open since there's no action proposed for Mailman improvement. > > 2. use the email to send a connection to confirm the > > subscription，People click the link to be redirected to a > > confirmation page to subscribe to the email。 > > See above. Indeed, AFAICS almost everything the OP is suggesting amounts to an identical procedure as far as the Mailman server is concerned, it's just described to the subscriber differently. The one exception is the suggestion to eliminate the confirmation step, and while that is supported, it's quite likely to cause problems for third parties and eventually for the Mailman site unless you have an alternative ground source of truth such as an employee database. Steve

2 years, 4 months

Re: Question about whitlisting a domain for specific mailing list

by Zaheer Abbas

Thanks, Mark & Odhiambo for providing options for the solution. I will try the 'postorius header filters' hacky way as it's more suitable to my requirement, however, if it didn't work as expected, then filtration through exim filter is also an acceptable option. Thanks again for the quick response. On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 8:58 PM Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> wrote: > On 3/30/23 11:07, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > So the MTA option that doesn't involve any regex is better than no? > > Partly it's a matter of taste and possibly a matter of necessity. I.e. a > list admin can do this with header filters and may not have access to > the MTA config. > > Also, it's not clear to me that doing this in Postfix is less > complicated than understanding a regex. > > -- > Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, > San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan > > _______________________________________________ > Mailman-users mailing list -- mailman-users(a)mailman3.org > To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-leave(a)mailman3.org > https://lists.mailman3.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.mailman3.org/ > Archived at: > https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-users@mailman3.org/message… > > This message sent to zaheer.psg(a)gmail.com >

2 years, 2 months

Re: How to store additional information about lists?

by Andreas Barth

* Stephen J. Turnbull (turnbull.stephen.fw(a)u.tsukuba.ac.jp) [210530 09:19]: > Mark Sapiro writes: > > On 5/29/21 7:31 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > > > Membership adapter is a Mailman 2 feature that allowed use of an > > > external membership database (such as a corporate LDAP system). I > > > thought it was ported to Mailman 3 but maybe not. > > > Actually, it's not quite that simple. Mailman 2.1 defines a > > MemberAdaptor class, [...]. > > The Mailman 3 analog of this is the IMember interface defined in > > mailman/interfaces/member.py and implemented in mailman/model/member.py > > OK, but for Andi it is "simple" in the sense that he doesn't have an > existing MemberAdapter, so the plan is "Implement the IMember interface". Not sure if this is the right approach, or if it wouldn't be more appropriate to "just" replace the dependency on allauth in postorius, and do all the magic in the frontend only (because that's where people actually subscribe). Whoever subscribes by mail needs some admin action, or some cron job, or is unsupported - for my case the main interface is the web interface, not the email commands. That of course would imply that e.g. cleaning up mailing lists happens by a cron job with rest, but why not? Andi

4 years

Re: Mailman, etc. upgrade woes and persistent bugs

by Abhilash Raj

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Abhilash Raj writes: > > > The is definitely a bug, caused due to the fact that "Delivery Status" field > > only has two options, "Enabled" and "Disabled". Internally, this field can > > have 4 values, "enabled", "by_user" (maps to "Disabled" in Postorius), > > "by_admin" (means disabled by admin) and "by_bounces" (means > > disabled due to bounces). So, when the value of the field is among > > the last two options, it appears as "unset" with no options selected, > > which unfortunately is also how it looks by default since all options > > are "unset" from start. > > > > The "fix" for this issue would be simply adding a new choice to the > > delivery_status field with a caveat that it is only a Readonly option to > > I don't see why most users would care (there will always be somebody > who cares "just because", of course). For those who don't care, I > expect it will be confusing. I think it's better just to treat all of > the disabled settings as just "disabled" in the UI for members. I don't have any strong opinions on treating all disabled options as just disabled for the user. Would List admins be interested in knowing more details about that or should it be the same for them? I feel they might be interested in such details. Brian mentioned that Affinity actually details explicit value of the delivery_status, so maybe it is useful for them? > > > We could also go a step further and show it on the List's info page > > when their delivery is disabled due to excessive bounce and allow > > the them to re-enable it themselves without admin intervention. > > This is probably a good idea, but in a situation where we know the > problem is excessive bouncing we should caution them that there is > almost certainly a probably with delivery *to their specific address* > and that Mailman and the admins *can do nothing about that*, so if > that isn't fixed they'll just get disabled again. I suppose it would > be good to add that frequently these are due to occasional problems > like disk full that "management" at their site normally takes care of, > so there's little if any harm to just reenabling. Yeah, a link to an FAQ entry in documentation perhaps? I am thinking that most addresses disabled due to bounces would really either be spam subscriptions or abandoned/invalid email addresses that once were working. There would be few with problems with delivery which would want to re-enable as soon as they can, but definitely letting them know that there is an issue with delivery is a good idea. > > > to the list's info page, but I guess that is the first place you'd go to > > debug when you get an email that your delivery was disabled? > > Surely we can help them go directly there? I guess yes, but that brings up the whole discussion about how does Core know about the URLs. Custom templates can help get there easily, but that will not solve the problem, only put the onus on list/server admins to set that on a per-installation basis. Although, we can add "Goto your list subscriptions to re-enable" your subscription. Maybe even a new email command that allows re-enabling subscription without logging into P? > > > https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/-/issues/470 > > > > I don't know if there are any downsides to letting users re-enable > > their delivery on their own. > > I don't see any myself. Maybe if the list is planning a surprise > party for them? ;-) Oh just Ban them in that case ;-) > There is a specific downside, which is that if you only allow them to > reenable if they disabled it themselves, you have to show them the > other cases. I was initially thinking that maybe we can disable changing the delivery status if it was disabled by an admin ("by_admin" value), but AFAIK, there is really no way to even set that right now and no real use case for that has come up, so I am going to punt on that idea until someone really asks for it with a valid use case ;-) -- thanks, Abhilash Raj (maxking)

4 years, 3 months

Re: Verification emails 'helo' rejected

by Greg Newby

Definitely it's venv. It might be that mailman-web.py is an artifact of an earlier attempt with Ubuntu packages, since settings.py and mailman-web.py are quite similar. I do have the other config files you mention, all under /etc/mailman3/ Thanks for any further thoughts... ~ Greg On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 3:47 AM Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 8:15 AM Greg Newby via Mailman-users < > mailman-users(a)mailman3.org> wrote: > >> Thanks for this, Odhiambo. Unfortunately it doesn't address my situation. >> See below: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 3:21 AM Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 10:43 PM Greg Newby via Mailman-users < >> > mailman-users(a)mailman3.org> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi friends. >> >> >> >> I'm now getting a 500 server error upon signing up a new username on >> the >> >> web-based front end. The username is created in the back end, but the >> >> verification email does not get sent. >> >> >> >> This is GNU Mailman 3.3.9 (Tom Sawyer), venv, Ubuntu 24.04LTS, >> PostgreSQL, >> >> Postfix >> >> >> >> Here are the corresponding logfile entries from mailmanweb.log: >> >> smtplib.SMTPRecipientsRefused: {'redacted(a)gmail.com': (504, b'5.5.2 >> >> <mail>: >> >> Helo command rejected: need fully-qualified hostname')} >> >> >> >> and from mail.log: >> >> Oct 14 12:06:26 domain postfix/smtpd[722764]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT >> from >> >> localhost[127.0.0.1]: 504 5.5.2 <mail>: Helo command rejected: need >> >> fully-qualified hostname; from=<root(a)lists.domain.tld> >> to=<root@localhost >> >> > >> >> proto=ESMTP helo=<mail> >> >> >> > >> >> ^^^^ Note the problem isn't the "From:" address. That is being correctly >> configured from mailman-web.py and settings.py via the variables below. >> >> The problem is it's going "To:" root@localhost. I don't know why this is >> happening - shouldn't it be going to redacted(a)gmail.com? >> >> Also, based on settings below shouldn't this be From: >> postorius(a)lists.domain.tld >> not From: root(a)lists.domain.tld? >> >> More: >> >> >> >> > >> >> lists.domain.tld is the domain for Mailman3. I don't know why it's >> trying >> >> to send email from root@. >> >> >> >> I've seen places where 'localhost' appears in the Mailman settings >> >> (settings.py, mailman.cfg, mailman-web.py), and tried changing them to >> the >> >> host's FQDN and restarting mailman3 and mailman3-web, but the problem >> >> persists. >> >> >> > >> > Find and fix these values to what they should be as explained. >> > >> > # The sender of emails from Django such as address confirmation >> requests. >> > # Set this to a valid email address. >> > DEFAULT_FROM_EMAIL = 'johndoe(a)domain.name' >> > >> > # The sender of error messages from Django. Set this to a valid email >> > # address. >> > SERVER_EMAIL = 'johndoe(a)domain.name' >> > >> > I use listmaster(a)lists.domain.name in my servers. >> > >> >> In the default files via the venv installation, these were already set >> properly: >> >> EMAILNAME='lists.domain.tld' <-- I set this myself >> >> These were default in settings.py and mailman-web.py: >> DEFAULT_FROM_EMAIL = 'postorius@{}'.format(EMAILNAME) >> SERVER_EMAIL = 'root@{}'.format(EMAILNAME) >> > > For the venv installation, I rarely hear a mention of mailman-web.py. > I only know about settings.py, mailman,cfg and mailman-hyperkitty.cfg > files in /etc/mailman3/ > > Are you really using the venv install? > > -- > Best regards, > Odhiambo WASHINGTON, > Nairobi,KE > +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223 > In an Internet failure case, the #1 suspect is a constant: DNS. > "Oh, the cruft.", egrep -v '^$|^.*#' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :-) > [How to ask smart questions: > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html] >

7 months, 3 weeks

Re: MM3 gateway errors and frequent reboot needs

by Brian Carpenter

On 4/19/20 4:38 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 4/19/20 1:21 PM, hansen(a)rc.org wrote: >> We have had to reboot the list server almost every week and wonder if there is something leaking and eating up resources. I does not appear to be memory, though. The server is slow to respond (could be because it's overseas) and then after some time we get intermittent gateway errors and finally we cannot access the lists online because of the gateway errors. It appears to me that the issue is with Postorius, but I could be wrong. Do files get closed after opening? Are we alone having such issues? > > We are not seeing an issue like this on either lists.mailman3.org (this > list) or mail.python.org (at the moment 118 @python.org Mailman 3 lists) > > What are you seeing in web server logs? > I concur with Mark. I am not seeing any such behavior on none of my MM3 servers. One server we were having similar problems and that was due to a bunch of bad behaving indexing bots (semrush, ahrefbot) hammering the server. So definitely check your web server log. -- Please let me know if you need further assistance. Thank you for your business. We appreciate our clients. Brian Carpenter EMWD.com -- EMWD's Knowledgebase: https://clientarea.emwd.com/index.php/knowledgebase EMWD's Community Forums http://discourse.emwd.com/

5 years, 1 month

Mailman Core 3.3.2rc2 Released

by Abhilash Raj

Hi Everyone, I am pleased to announce that Mailman Core 3.3.2rc2 is now out. This release includes both bug fixes and some new features. Some notable changes include: - Support for inviting users to join mailing lists. - New `adddmembers`, `delmembers` and `syncmembers` command to manage membership from CLI. - Addition of new REST API endpoints that return the count of held messages and subscription requests of much faster page loads in Postorius. - Addition of support for filtering in some API endpoints like Members and Subscription requests. - Support for `address=` option in email join command to subscribe an address other then sending address. - Addition of `who` email command to lookup memberships. - Expose emergency field for MailingList resource in REST API. - Several bug fixes to support new major version of libraries like dnspython, flufl.* etc. Since this is a pre-release, you can install it using: $ pip install --pre --upgrade mailman If there are no new major bugs, 3.3.2 will be released in 2 weeks time. We are now in strings freeze, so if you would like to help with translations to your native language, now is the time. We use Weblate for translations [1] and see here[2] for more documentation about i18n process in Mailman. There are a couple of new templates and more user friendly email templates & subjects for Mailman generated emails that could use translations. [1]: https://hosted.weblate.org/projects/gnu-mailman/mailman/ [2]: https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/translation.html -- thanks, Abhilash Raj (maxking)

4 years, 7 months

Re: Link another address

by Mark Sapiro

On 5/18/20 5:13 PM, Brian Carpenter wrote: > I am thinking about incorporating the following Postorius/Django account feature into Affinity: > > Other emails: (no other email) Link another address > > However I cannot think of a serious real-world need for this. What are the developers' reasoning behind this? Was this feature highly demanded by Mailman 3 users? Just trying to find out what I am missing here. In mailman 2.1 there was no concept of user. There were only lists and list members and list members were just email addresses that had no connection to other list members even if they happened to have the same email address. In mailman 3 we have users. Users can have multiple addresses. a user or a particular user's address can be a regular member and an owner of one list, a moderator of another list and a non-member of a third list. Some other address of that user can be a digest member of the first list. All of these addresses and roles can belong to a single user and be managed from that user's one account. Sure, each address can be separate with it's own login, but isn't it more convenient if they are all linked under one login if they all belong to one individual. -- Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

5 years

very few moderation capabilities for moderators

by Guillermo Hernandez (Oldno7)

Hi all: I need to provide the list moderators a way to change the moderation flag for users from whichever it is (normally "list default processing") to "hold for moderation" and viceversa (to "list default" or to "accept") I understand that it could be done via console script (That's the way I did on mailman2: I made two commands using "withlist", one to hold, moderar.py, and other one to accept, desmoderar.py. I show you below) But I think I'm not the only one that could use as an improvement a way to do this on postorius/web. Before to trying implementing them on mailman3, I beg you to tell me if they could do that on mailman3. Thanks in advance. ****************** (moderar.py) #! /usr/local/bin/python # # script via withlist para moderar a pelo # """moderar un miembro. Save as bin/moderar.py Run via bin/withlist -r moderar <listname> <member> """ from Mailman import mm_cfg def moderar(mlist, member): if not mlist.Locked(): mlist.Lock() mlist.setMemberOption(member, mm_cfg.Moderate, True) mlist.Save() mlist.Unlock() ****************** (desmoderar.py) #! /usr/local/bin/python # # script via withlist para desmoderar un miembro # """desmoderar un miembro. Save as bin/desmoderar.py Run via bin/withlist -r desmoderar <listname> <member> """ from Mailman import mm_cfg def desmoderar(mlist, member): if not mlist.Locked(): mlist.Lock() mlist.setMemberOption(member, mm_cfg.Moderate, False) mlist.Save() mlist.Unlock() --

3 years, 8 months

Re: URLs in moderation messages

by Odhiambo Washington

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 8:22 PM Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> wrote: > On 3/3/23 01:55, Tim Cutts wrote: > > > > I’ve clearly got something wrong in my configuration, but I can’t work > out what. > > > > All my URLs seem to have the “mailman3” part duplicated, i.e. > > > > Https://example.com/mailman3/mailman3/lists > > > > Is where I have to go to get a list of my mailing lists, which just > doesn’t seem right. > > > > In my settings.py file I have: > > > > POSTORIUS_TEMPLATE_BASE_URL = 'https://example.com/mailman3/' > > > > If I change the value of this to just https://example.com/ it doesn’t > change this, > > > That setting has nothing to do with your issue. It only determines the > base part of the URL that's used to retrieve templates set in Postorius. > > What is your web server configuration? This is probably where the > problem lies. See > > https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/install/virtualenv.html#nginx-configura… > for a suggested nginx config and > > https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/install/virtualenv.html#apache-configur… > for Apache. > Are these proposed VirtualHost configs independent of whether one is using gunicorn/mod_wsgi/uwsgi? -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223 "Oh, the cruft.", egrep -v '^$|^.*#' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :-)

2 years, 3 months

Mailman-users search results for query "Postorius"