Search results for "Postorius" - Mailman-users

Re: Splitting hosts: mta&core vs postorius

by Mark Sapiro

On 6/22/20 12:23 PM, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote: > >> I agree with this, we need a setting for which interface for Gunicorn >> to listen on, and what Mailman Core sends out in the self_link >> attribute when responding to REST requests. >> > Exactly! :-) Except if there were a `bind_host` setting to specify the host to bind the REST API to and you set that to `0.0.0.0` you would have exactly what leads to the situation below, so we need to understand what's happening there (although I think I do - see below). On 6/22/20 12:21 PM, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote: > > I did try with the gunicorn patch Mark mentioned (host = "0.0.0.0") and > changing the cfg file hostname back to the full name of the host, and > that now works!! -- in that the problem I showed earlier is gone. > > > However I then get another issue. From the mailman.log file I now see in > the last few lines. For clarity I've numbered them like this "{1}": > > {1} [22/Jun/2020:00:58:24 +0000] "GET /3.1/domains HTTP/1.1" 200 320 "-" > "GNU Mailman REST client v3.3.1" > {2} [22/Jun/2020:00:58:24 +0000] "GET /3.1/domains/ch-bc.org.uk > HTTP/1.1" 200 215 "-" "GNU Mailman REST client v3.3.1" > {3} [22/Jun/2020:00:58:24 +0000] "GET > /3.1/domains/greyarea-web1.cam.ivimey.org/lists?advertised=true&count=0&page=1 > HTTP/1.1" 404 26 "-" "GNU Mailman REST client v3.3.1" > > At this point the browser screen reports "Something went wrong" and the > message "HTTP Error 404: {"title": "404 Not Found"}" Tracebacks would really help. You should be able to find them in the log configured as LOGGING['handlers']['file']['filename'] in your Django settings. > Previously, the process stopped at line {1}. Now that and line {2} is > executed (AFAIK) correctly, but then line {3} is isssued. I have no idea > why something is looking for "domains/greyarea-web1": > > - Only the "ch-bc.org.uk" domain is listed in the reply to line {1}, as > expected; Go to your Django admin web UI and look at your Django Mailman 3 Mail domains. This will be at a URL like https://greyarea-web1.cam.ivimey.org/admin/django_mailman3/maildomain/ Do you see this domain there? If so, delete it. > - "greyarea-web1" doesn't appear in any lists I can show with the > "mailman" cli command (and I think I tried them all); But that's looking at Mailman core which is not where Postorius is getting this list. > - "greyarea-web1" doesn't appear anywhere in the source or config other > than as the name of the host its running on or as an ALLOWED_HOST; > > - I tried using "curl -X DELETE" (from the api docs) to delete a domain > called that and it says no such list exists. Again, you're talking to core, not Django. > My only possible clue is that I think, at some point in the journey of > configuring mailman, I might have created a list called that on the > host. However since then I have wiped the install files and reinstalled. > I cannot make sense of this being the answer given the checks just listed. Did you wipe the database on greyarea-web1? > I went looking through the python source and can see that the get() > function does indeed throw a 404 exception if the domain isn't found, > but I cannot see which code is parsing the reply from the first line > > So I have two questions: > > 1) How can I fix this problem? See above. > 2) why does getting an 404 reply here cause the postorius web page to > produce a "something went wrong" /404 and nothing else, when it could > have simply reported that something had gone wrong with one specific > domain; Because the code isn't robust enough :( ... > Ideally, and this is icing on the cake, a listen address specification > should allow multiple IPs to be passed in, in which case the server > listens on all of them. I expect the python libraries already support this. We could implement a bind_address setting that would pass to gunicorns --bind parameter anything acceptable to gunicorn, although multiple values are tricky as they apparently require multiple -b/--bind options and a single -b/--bind doesn't support a list of values. But, I'm not convinced that this is something anyone needs. I'm still waiting for a response to <https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-users@mailman3.org/message…>. -- Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

5 years, 8 months

Re: Emergency moderation and clearing out a lot of held messages

by Stephen J. Turnbull

Dan Caballero writes: > We're running Mailman in AWS using and RDS MySQL database. It seems > to take unusually long to approve or discard even a few messages. I assume you are use Postorius for this? > What should be a normal response time for processing as few as 10 > messages? I don't know about MySQL/Maria. All of the production instances I have access to are backed by PostgreSQL. Response using Postorius is not instantaneous, but 2-3 seconds is maximum. Also, I don't think I've seen multiple messages with the same treatment in visit in many months (maybe a year), but I don't recall those "feeling" longer than a single message request. > I've done some testing in the pass running Mailman3 in a Docker > container and using a local instance of MariaDB. Even in that > situation I still found the processing slow. I guess since you talk about "10 at once" you have a much larger lists and/or much larger user databases and/or heavier traffic per user and/or more "spam". It would help to know what the scale of your Mailman installation is in those dimensions. I don't think Mailman's Python code is likely to be the bottleneck, rather it's probably database queries. Have you looked at MySQL's logs for queries related to those operations? Steve

3 years, 4 months

Re: Error when click on mailing list: An error occurred while processing your request.

by Mark Sapiro

On 7/14/24 21:40, adam.heathcote(a)utas.edu.au wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Sorry about the delay in replying. > > You're correct, I am clicking on the list in the Mailing List view. > > Navigating to the list URL directly while not logged in produces the same error and even produces the error when a different user is logged in. Now it's my turn to apologize. I've been traveling. In your original post you wrote "I've tried removing it and reimporting it to no avail." What exactly does this mean. You removed the list how? Then you reran the import21. Was the list broken at that point, or only after removing the old owners and adding yourself? What if you try the following steps in order and try to view the list in Postorius after each step. - remove the list with `mailman remove list(a)example.com` and recreate it with `mailman create list(a)example.com` - run `mailman import21 list(a)example.com path/to/config.pck` - in Postorius, add yourself as owner. - in Postorius, delete one of the other owners. - repeat the deletion and viewing the list for the other unwanted owners one at a time. If the view throws the error at some point, after which step? -- Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

1 year, 7 months

Re: Postorius claims 2 messages held when there are none - out of sync

by Ken Alker

--On Monday, June 26, 2023 5:26 PM -0700 Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> wrote: > On 6/26/23 4:19 PM, Ken Alker wrote: >> >> What else is stored in /var/messages, if not archives? I see 4711 >> messages in that directory (which I presume would be as many messages >> are in the archive database). If there is a write-up on this, feel >> free to point me to it. I found >> <https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/build/lib/mailman/ >> model/docs/messagestore.html> but this isn't really answering my >> question. > > > These are probably artifacts from your old Debian package. There have > been issues in the past with handled messages not being removed from the > message store. See https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/-/issues/257 > > This was fixed in 3.3.5 and the task runner implemented in 3.3.5 removes > orphaned messages from the message store, but if they are still > referenced in pendings they won't be deleted. So is the only thing stored in var/messages/ the held messages, and nothing more? Is there an outline as to how to clean up the var/messages hierarchy? (I assume one has to be careful not to remove current held messages and maybe old ones that have not been processed; or maybe "old ones" can all be assumed orphaned, and thus, removed w/o concern?)

2 years, 8 months

Re: Postorius Suggestion: Give owner a view of all users of all owned lists

by Andreas Vetter

Stephen, after thinking a lot about it, I came up with this. Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Andreas Vetter writes: > > A list of all addresses subscribed to all lists owned by the logged > > in person. > > This is starting to take a better form. It's still very specialized, > so I'm starting to wonder if trying to add it to Postorius is a great > idea. Of course if people are coming in over the network, you don't > want to reproduce all the authentication and authorization logic > implemented in Django and Postorius. That may as well be done in > Django, and if you're doing Django it may as well be Postorius too. > > But if you're in a single sign-on environment so presence in the > network implies strong authentication, you will get more flexibility > from local scripts using mailmanclient, or if you're confident in > security access to the REST API directly. Just putting that out for > your consideration, since implementing what is taking shape here would > take quite some time as the folks skilled with Postorius are not so > active these days. I agree, this is very special. In our case we will cook it down to a very special solution providing owners with the info they need. Based on that, they can use the unchanged postorius for (un-)subscribing. > > Owner is the primary target group for that. But since it should be > > a tool for managing subscriptions in a simple way, it might also be > > of interest for superusers. For me as a superuser it would make > > life easier. > > [...] > > > Ah, I see the problem and agree: So, the presentation should have a > > sorted and searchable list of addresses and a Button next to each > > address, maybe labeled "Subscriptions". > > Looking at your description above, for superusers that is basically > the Users tab, though. Users are identified by primary address, and > you'd not see alternate addresses in the list. But presumably your > internal users use their @your.org addresses as primary. Can you make > clear what could be more streamlined for your use cases as superuser? > I give one example below, maybe that's what you're mostly interested > in. > > The caveats about access to User objects still apply for owners, so > even if they look the same (which is a good UX idea if owner > functionality is a subset of superuser functionality, also they might > even be able to share the basic page templates), the implementation is > going to be rather different. I suspect you superusers would be quite > frustrated if using the "subscribe all these lists" functionality > meant you couldn't get at the User object without going to a different > page. > > I do see one weird thing: you can't manipulate subscription itself > from the User page as seen by the superuser from that list, only > toggle moderation and delivery mode. I guess that's reasonable for a > lot of use cases, though. I've never wanted to do a subscribe or > unsubscribe from there. I always have a long list of users to > subscribe to specific lists, never a list of lists a specific user > should belong to, We have a list for almost every working group and have scripts reading members from there and putting them together in the higher level lists. People can be in more than one working group list. Users come, stay some years and go, so mass (un-)subscription is used for single addresses usually. But if the owner forgets to delete someone from a list, the person is still in one of the higher "automatic" lists. So an overview would have been nice. The "(un-)subscribe all" buttons are not really needed in our use case. We run about 300 lists. For a superuser this is a lot, given the fact there is no filtering in the table of lists. A owner wants to see in an address view all his lists. A superuser does not, because it would be too much unrelevant information (e.g all 200 research lists, when user is in finance). As a superuser I could need in the users view: - clicking on a list name to manage the list - unsubscribe button > > The presentation given when above "Subscriptions" Button is clicked > > should contain the address as kind of Headline. Then a table of > > all lists of the logged in owner and next to each mailing list an > > indication, if the address is subscribed or not and a Button to > > toggle subscription/unsubscription. May be a single Toggle Button > > or (maybe better) two buttons, a suscribe and a unsubscribe button, > > where one is greyed out. > > This would not work with the current User page as presented to a > superuser, that's true. The current presentation is quite suited to > its purpose, with sections for Addresses, Subscriptions, Ownership, > and Delete User in that order. But especially for superusers, there > are plenty of sites with thousands, even tens of thousands of lists, > and even a paged or scrollable presentation would be awful UI, and the > potential for a disastrous mistake using "do all" is high. I agree. So I think superusers "users view" and owners "addresses view" should be different things. > > In addition my owners would like to have a "unsubscribe from all my > > lists" button. And a "subscribe to all my lists" button. This might > > be visually nicer, when having the two-button approach above. > > I wonder if your owners really want "subscribe all". "Unsubscribe > all" does make sense for separations, of course, and they wouldn't > necessarily be terminations. It would be useful in an internal > transfer where "delete user" is not a solution. But in my experience > specialized channels tend to proliferate but the same people are > likely to be running them as run the department-wide lisst. Yes, "subscribe all" is usually not wanted, I just mentioned it for symmetry. Since we populate higher lists with members from lower lists by script, we would not strictly need "unsubscribe all" as long as the owner knows which lists are populated automatic. We currently hide that info in the short description of the list. Everything very special, I agree. > > In our case we would want to (un-)subscribe the address in a "do > > it, don't ask anyone" fashion, but maybe this is not a good idea in > > general. What do you think? > > I think we would implement it similarly to the mass subscribe for > multiple addresses case, where the list owner can decide how much > bureaucracy to require of the subscriber. You'd want to be careful to > make sure address verification is done at most once (for your use > case, probably not at all). And there would be some things that could > be done to arrange that most lists would have sensible defaults. Yes, this is and was a problem for us. We imported many lists from mailman2. Some settings have to be changed after migration, and a mailman config command to set settings for lists would be great. Or a way to permanently create new list styles. > > Yes, I agree, but policy here is to get rid of subdomains, and that > > falls on our feet now. > > Well, once we figure out how to implement domain ownership, it > wouldn't be hard to adapt that technology to "departments" that are > administratively distinct but share mail and/or web domains. The main > problem would be deciding whether and how to nest them. Superuser > > domain owner > list owner > moderator is pretty obvious, but how > "department owner" would fit in is less so. I already had this wo possibilities here (at different times): In fact a department owner could own several domains. The department research (as opposed to e.g. administration) could contain biology.example.org and physics.example.org) Would it harm to be owner of several domains? Or it could be the other way round (physics.uni.edu has a theory department and an experiment department, each having chairs with the list owners). So there is no single way. Department owner and domain owner seem to be roles on the same level with different funcionality. Superuser has to decide how to use it. -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Andreas Vetter

1 year

Re: How to set up mailman 3

by Mark Sapiro

On 03/25/2017 04:55 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: > > A list's message_size can't currently be set in Postorius. File an issue > at <https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/issues/new>. Actually the attribute name is max_message_size, not message_size. It exists in core and can be set, e.g., from the command line via 'mailman shell', but it needs to be exposed in Postorius. -- Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

8 years, 11 months

Re: Help request, almost got it going, but ....

by Mark Sapiro

On 09/01/2017 02:33 PM, Claus-Justus Heine via Mailman-users wrote: > > Seemingly, at some point in the deep dungeons of the source code the > "Acceptable aliases" Text-Box is not interpreted correctly. > > Specifically, at the start it contains the string > > [] See <https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/issues/58>. In order to set things on this page, you need to clear the Acceptable aliases box before submitting changes. You can't actually set Acceptable aliases via Postorius until this is fixed. -- Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

8 years, 6 months

Displaying new lists in Hyperkitty (Re: "Private archives" aren't private)

by Simon Liebold

> settings in postorius are not reflected in hyperkitty. That's not yet fixed, or is it? Am 28.07.2017 um 10:55 schrieb cyp(a)trojina.si: > but "mlist_object.update_from_mailman()" works. So luckily we have a workaround, thanks. I am unsure where/how to use this workaround. Can anyone explain how I get Hyperkitty to display (and archive for) new lists created via Postorius. Simon

8 years, 5 months

Django logins for new subscribers

by Alex McLean

Hi all, I'm moving our groups to mailman3 (http://we.lurk.org) Enjoying it so far! I've mass-subscribed people via postorius. However the subscribers don't have django (postorius/hyperkitty) logins. It seems they only exist on the mailman side, not the django side. If they go through the process of creating an account in postorius, they can configure their mailing list subscriptions, but this is a bit fiddly. Is this expected behaviour? It would be great if they could be sent a temporary link to set a password and go. Best wishes, alex

8 years, 2 months

setup of URLs

by Peter Münster

Hi, I would like to point "https://my-domain.org/" to the list of mailing-lists of this domain. How should I setup my Apache configuration and/or the urlpatterns please? With my actual configuration, the above URL is always rewritten to https://my-domain.org/postorius/lists/ These are my urlpatterns: urlpatterns = [ url(r'^$', RedirectView.as_view( url=reverse_lazy('list_index'), permanent=True)), url(r'^postorius/', include('postorius.urls')), url(r'^archive/', include('hyperkitty.urls')), url(r'', include('django_mailman3.urls')), url(r'^accounts/', include('allauth.urls')), url(r'^admin/', include(admin.site.urls)), ] TIA for any help, -- Peter

8 years, 1 month

Mailman-users search results for query "Postorius"