Search results for "Postorius" - Mailman-users

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

10 months, 1 week

remove website example.com via django interface

by Alexander Inzinger-Zrock

remove website 'example.com' via django interface or "how to rush jourself off your feet" **Disclaimer: don't try this at home** in believe to replace the display of 'example.com' in the postorius-webinterface i logged into django-interface, under 'website' (very bottom of the left menu) i added my new website and then deleted 'example.com'. Result: i can't access my webinterfaces any more, neither django nor postorius. Questions: 1. Does somebody know about the correct approach to change the displayed url in the postorius-webinterface? 2. does somebody perhaps know how to revert those removal via CLI or other ways? greetings aiz

9 months, 4 weeks

Re: sqlite3 Database "read only" error on mailman_sync job

by Abhilash Raj

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Ugnius S wrote: > > I have installed using documentation. My linux distribution version has no full package available. I have installed step by step: > $ sudo pip3 install mailman > $ sudo pip3 install postorius > $ sudo pip3 install hyperkitty > $ sudo pip3 install mailman-hyperkitty > And of course all mandatory components... Everything without errors, I can drop db files and I can download mailman-suite again and start from empty page again. But it will not guarantee that DB will not become READ ONLY again. Here should be logic. No developing support here? Could you be running two separate processes such that the database is locked by one and so other finds it as READ Only? When you find a read only database, can you check if it is open in some other process? > > > > 2019-09-03, an, 19:36 Abhilash Raj <maxking(a)asynchronous.in> rašė: >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019, at 3:22 AM,ugniusviln(a)gmail.com wrote: >> > Hi. All the project installation is under the same user / path and >> > it works. Archiving working as well, (just one remark: no matter what >> > to set in postorius, hyperkitty shows list as public) >> > I have found work around - it is possible to change list as private in >> > "admin" page. >> > I started to get issues with runjobs after I have created couple of >> > new lists with "no archive" option. >> >> How did you install all these components. It seems there the installation is broken in weird ways. >> >> > >> > If as owner user from project home I run: >> > >> > django-admin mailman_sync >> > >> > Traceback (most recent call last): >> > File >> > "/home/user/.local/lib/python3.5/site-packages/django/db/backends/utils.py", >> > line 84, in _execute >> > return self.cursor.execute(sql, params) >> > File >> > "/home/user/.local/lib/python3.5/site-packages/django/db/backends/sqlite3/base.py", >> > line 383, in execute >> > return Database.Cursor.execute(self, query, params) >> > sqlite3.OperationalError: attempt to write a readonly database >> > >> > "django-admin runjob sync_mailman " - makes read only errors as well. >> > "django-admin runjob new_lists_from_mailman" >> > django.db.utils.OperationalError: attempt to write a readonly database >> > END TRACEBACK >> > >> > I did not find information how to fix this. It was worked without errors >> > before. >> > I noticed, that if I stop mailman, "django-admin mailman_sync" starts >> > to work. >> > If I start "mailman start", then "django-admin mailman_sync" failing >> > again. >> > I did not check other jobs, but I think what is related to database, >> > will get errors. >> > Seems mailman locking the database. It is not a file permissions issue. >> > Mailman db location is: /project_directory/var/data/mailman.db >> > >> > if to rename /project_directory/var/data/mailman.db to something, >> > mailman creates database file size 0, django-admin runjobs start >> > working, but of course postorius stops working. I did it for testing. >> > I have returned this database file back, postorius started to work >> > again, but django-admin runjobs does not work, error: "database read >> > only". >> > Please help me how to fix this issue. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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/ >> > >> >> -- >> thanks, >> Abhilash Raj (maxking) -- thanks, Abhilash Raj (maxking)

6 years, 4 months

Unadvertised lists accessible even if not signed in

by Peter Chubb

Hi folks, I'm running Mailman3 3.3.10, with postorius and hyperkitty. I want unadvertised lists to be visible only to the people who are subscribed to them and to site administrators. Right now, anyone who has the name of a list can construct a URL to the signup page, even for unadvertised lists. So, I can go to: https://site.name/postorius/lists/test.site.name/ and get to the test list, even if it is unadvertised. I see people scanning URLs like this in the NGINX logs, looking for lists. How can I prevent anyone not logged in, and not a member of an unadvertised list, from seeing it? Peter C

2 weeks, 4 days

Re: New releases

by Mark Sapiro

On 6/8/20 1:01 PM, Danil Smirnov wrote: > > I have Postorius verson 1.3.3 but I still see horizontal tabs not vertical > menus. > > Could you elaborate more on this? The first row of horizontal tabs is unchanged, but the `Settings` tab used to have a second horizontal row and now has a vertical list on the left. After you upgraded did you run these django-admin commands? ``` django-admin collectstatic --clear --noinput --verbosity 0 django-admin compress django-admin compilemessages django-admin migrate ``` These 4 commands should be run after every update to Postorius, HyperKitty or django_mainlman3. -- Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

5 years, 7 months

Re: Mailman, etc. upgrade woes and persistent bugs

by Brian Carpenter

On 2/13/21 11:39 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Brian Carpenter writes: > > > I think treating all disabled options the same is short-sighted. They > > are all not the same. > > > > -- Some list members will disable their subscription for good reasons > > and will be really upset if a List Owner renables it through ignorance. > > So it is important to know a disable member is done by the member > > itself. > > This is true in principle, but (1) I don't think that the user cares; > if they're looking at it, they know whether they want enabled or > disabled, how it got that way doesn't matter to them, and (2) I can't > see why an admin would disable delivery except on request from a user, > so I can't see why an admin would reenable except on request from a > user. The only case I can see would be a mass reenabling, but that's > not going to happen in the future (I hope). > > > -- Some mailing lists will have multiple list owners managing them. So > > it is important for one List Owner to know when a subscription has been > > disabled by the actions of another List Owner. > > I don't see why, see above. > > > -- A List Owner may not know that some of his List Members are bouncing > > messages for various reasons, so reviewing their Membership roster, they > > see that they have some list members disabled due to bounces and can > > then address those particular problematic members. > > This query is an important use case. But it's the only one, I think, > unless you really have List Owners arbitrarily disabling members' > subscriptions. And if you're thinking about reenabling from that > page, I think you need a lot more information. For example, if the > admin disabled, you need to know if that was a user request or > something else (what?). If bounce disabled, you want to know what the > bounce was ("no such mailbox"? probably not a good candidate for > reenabling), and when (5 minutes ago? ditto). I guess you could just > reenable and see what happens, but that could be risky (eg, sending > mail to non-existent users is frowned upon by some providers). > > > @Abhilash, I highly recommend that you contact me off list about getting > > access to Affinity so you can see what I am talking about. I would love > > to show you what I have done for Member Management. I offered the same > > to Steve but he never was interested in taking a look. > > It's not that I lack interest, it's that life got in the way. > Unfortunately, until I get enough time (man-weeks, I've never worked > on Postorius and very little in Django) to work on Postorius, or > somebody else starts to do it, a look at Affinity is low priority. > Also, it's pretty clear that a quick look isn't going to be very > helpful. The Mailman developers know what Mailman 2 looks like. I > think the benefits to a hands-on admin are pretty obvious vs the > current Postorius, as are Web 2.0 improvments like sorting on the > options. The more subtle improvements you've made are going to > require a guided tour and/or some study to identify and understand. > > Aside: I have to assume that Postorius is aimed at the kind of > subscriber that most of us are, and that list administration was > something of an afterthought, and assumed to be mostly hands-off. > That's the only rationale I can come up with for the design where > list admins need to go to the individual pages to see user options -- > it was easier to reuse the user option page and just give the admin > permission to access and change it, than to provide a (sortable) list > with user details. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > 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/ I was going to respond in detail but it will be an effort in futility. My opinions are DEFINITELY not valued by you and that is your right as it my right to leave Postorius behind, permanently. Moving to my own interface was one of the best decisions I made and that decision continues to be shown to be a great one when I read threads like this. -- Brian Carpenter Harmonylists.com Emwd.com

4 years, 11 months

Re: Postorius no connection to REST API

by Richard Rosner

Mark Sapiro wrote: > > Because those aren't the settings that matter for this. > What if anything are your settings in the mailman.cfg [webservice] > section for > hostname: > port: > admin_user: > admin_pass: > use_https: > (defaults in our distribution are localhost, 8001, restadmin, restpass > and no respectively - I don't know if Debian changes these). > These need to match the Django settings > MAILMAN_REST_API_URL = 'http://localhost:8001' > MAILMAN_REST_API_USER = 'restadmin' > MAILMAN_REST_API_PASS = 'restpass' They do match. Even the port (still on 8001). > > The REST API is apparently not listening on the host/port this is trying > to connest to. Apparently. The question is why. > > What is executing the manage.py command to start Django. Is it user list? Probably. It depends on who is calling it. I understand too little of the new architecture. But mailman3.service is run as list, mailman3-web.service as root. > > I don't use uwsgi and know little about it so I don't know what the Unix > domain socket /run/mailman3-web/uwsgi.sock connection is for, but this > appears to be some miscunfiguration between apache and uwsgi. > Normally, in an apache/uwsgi configuration, apache proxies to uwsgi via > tcp port 8000 and uwsgi is configured with > [uwsgi] > uwsgi-socket = 0.0.0.0:8000 I too have no experience in the combination ow apache and uwsgi. The only other uwsgi app I'm running is on another server and running under nginx.

4 years, 5 months

Re: mass invitation

by Mark Sapiro

On 6/20/19 9:07 AM, Abhilash Raj wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, at 7:17 AM, mailman3(a)malevil.cc wrote: >> in postorius there is just the option to make a mass subscription, in >> mailman2 there was also the possibility to just invite users, so they >> need to click a link when they really want to join the list. Is this >> also available in mailman3/postorius? > > > No, not yet. There is an open issue that I can't dig out right now. The issue is <https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/issues/510> -- Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

6 years, 7 months

Mailman3 throws 500 error (unicode encode) when loading held messages in Postorius

by Stephen J. Turnbull

Simon Handfield via Mailman-users writes: > I have been working through other threads that indicate the same > symptom (500 error when loading held_messages for a list). You want threads that deal with Unicode: > Error reported in log with debug enabled: > > Traceback (most recent call last): And that last call is:: > File "/usr/lib/python3.6/email/message.py", line 315, in set_payload > payload = payload.encode(charset.output_charset) > UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode characters in position 8-9: ordinal not in range(128) It appears that the message is improperly constructed, and either a Content-Type field has a omitted or inappropriate charset parameter, or perhaps the Content-Type field is omitted entirely (ASCII is the default charset). This is frequently a problem created by spam messages. The message should be in the shunt queue. You can examine it with the command "mailman qfile /path/to/message_file.pck". Unfortunately it's not clear from the backtrace where in the message this is: it's at the beginning of a part ("position 8-9") or maybe line, but the part could be late in the message. If it's spam, you can just delete the file (and do whatever else you do about spam, of course). If it's not spam, it would help if you can guess what language and charset are being used in the message, and we can go from there. If this is unclear, feel free to ask more.

5 years, 4 months

Re: best pratice - set default MM settings and make them update-save

by Stefan Bauer

Thank you very much. But this is a _new_ mailman behavior. In previous versions, there was no checkbox at all and mass-subscription was done without any confirmation. Stefan Am Mo., 16. Mai 2022 um 18:35 Uhr schrieb Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net>: > On 5/16/22 07:16, Stefan Bauer wrote: > > > > Is there also a way to have this box checked by default or do not > request a > > verifcation at all? > > Could not find any flag in base.py. > > To have the box checked by default would require a patch to Postorius > like this. > ``` > --- a/src/postorius/forms/list_forms.py > +++ b/src/postorius/forms/list_forms.py > @@ -1073,7 +1073,7 @@ class ListMassSubscription(forms.Form): > > pre_verified = forms.BooleanField( > label=_('Pre Verified'), > - initial=False, > + initial=True, > required=False, > help_text=_( > 'If checked, users will not have to verify that their ' > ``` > Not requiring verification at all would require patching Mailman core > but would be a bad idea as it could allow someone to subscribe anyone > without that person's consent. > > -- > 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/ >

3 years, 8 months

Mailman-users search results for query "Postorius"