Search results for "sapiro" - lists.mailman3.org

[MM3-users] [Suspected Spam]Re: [MM3-users]Exim, Mailman3 and missing Message-ID:

by Stephen J. Turnbull

Mark Sapiro writes: > Rob's reply in this thread was garbled due to > <https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/issues/616>. The text of the reply > is quoted below. > > On 7/27/19 12:54 AM, Rob Lister wrote: > > > > One thing that does occur to me is that my exim header fudge will > > probably cause the Message-ID header to move around from its original > > position, and if someone is doing hashing or actually validating (gpg > > signing?) the headers haven't been tampered with, then it might > > complain, since although the message-id hasn't changed, it might be in a > > different place in the headers. I don't think this is a problem. GPG or S/MIME signing with any software I know of only signs the message body (or a MIME part). DKIM message signing isn't going to care about the order of fields because DKIM canonicalizes the order (at least for the unique fields) according to the specification in the signature field, and that will be verified on the way in. Of course adding a Message-ID will likely break DKIM for the outgoing post, but Mailman as normally used breaks DKIM anyway. This can be partly mitigated by using ARC (authenticated received chain), which is supported by Google already, and possibly some of the other usual DMARC suspects (Yahoo!, AOL). > > Probably the more correct way to do it is only add a new header if it's > > missing, and if it's there, leave it alone. True, and I think this does it: headers_add = ${if def:h_message-id:{fail}{Message-ID: ... id generator code ...}} If you like that and test it, I would really appreciate feedback so we can update the documentation. One thing *I* would like to add to this recipe is logging. I'd be curious to see how frequently it happens outside of spam and junior high school hackers using netcat as their MUA. I don't see how to do this in Exim, though. Another is using a prefix other than "E" to indicate this isn't standard Exim behavior. Steve

6 years, 9 months

[MM3-users] Re: UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode character

by Marvin Gülker

Hi, Am 10. Dezember 2019 um 10:25 Uhr -0800 schrieb Mark Sapiro: >The underlying issue here is probably ><https://bugs.python.org/issue32330>, but that knowledge doesn't help >us. We need to get rid of the offending message in the message store. >The first step is in mailman shell. Note the paths /opt/mailman/mm/bin/ >and /opt/mailman/mm/var/ will need to be adjusted. Thanks for this information. Ubuntu's mailman stores the messages below /var/lib/mailman3/messages. The "mailman" command is in the $PATH. >This should print the file name and Message-ID-Hash (two lines the same) >for each message in the messages directory until it prints only one line >followed by the UnicodeEncodeError exception. That list line is the file >name/Message-ID-Hash of the offending message. I've execucted that code, but it does not cause an exception at all. It quietly runs through. I've attached the transcript of the shell session to this mail. With a little crude use of grep(1), however I found my held message in WQ/ZS/WQZSFFJLVMWQHMG4VYKGXJEKQVQXVK67. Does the messages directory contain only held messages? I've looked at some messages and all of these I looked at were spam. The directory structure contains 40 messages in total, accumulating to 480 KiB disk space. If required, I can zip that directory up and e-mail it to you for inspection. >DELETE FROM message WHERE message_id_hash = xxx; As the exception you expected did not occur, I didn't do this yet. I can make a database and directory backup and then run it, though. Should I try? I assume after this I should also delete the respective files from the messages/ directory? >As of Mailman core 3.3.0 there is a 'mailman notify' command designed to >be run periodically by cron to notify owners/moderators of prnding requests. I did receive an e-mail to the list owner address that told me that the e-mail from my incorrect e-mail address "requires approval". That was the first time I received such an e-mail. In parallel, on the incorrect e-mail address, I received the notification for moderator approval. Marvin -- Blog: https://mg.guelker.eu

6 years, 5 months

[MM3-users] Re: Block members from sending cc's and bcc's

by Stephen J. Turnbull

Mark Sapiro writes: > On 10/20/25 17:50, Cathryn McGuire wrote: > > More importantly, what are you trying to accomplish? I.e. what do > > you want to happen in the following cases? > > > Message To: the list, no Cc: -- Accepted > Message To: the list, Cc: to other address (non-member) -- Hold for moderation. > Message To: the list, Cc: to a member's address ?? Accepted > > I don't think you can accomplish this one. I agree with Mark -- I don't see how to do this without changes to the code. Also, note that even if you could configure this as you desire, the CC addresses will be delivered. But people who subscribe but aren't CC'd will receive the post only if and when the post is released from hold. Only you can decide whether that's desirable, but it's likely some subscribers will be unhappy about it. If preventing subscribers from getting duplicates is a reason for these settings, there is a user option (I think it's "Not Me Too") that suppresses list distribution to subscribers whose addresses are in To or CC. The list owner can set this manually, one by one. The site owner (who can log in on the host) can use a simple script to do so. When this is set, only the direct message (without list decorations in Subject or footer) is received by CC'd subscribers. This probably won't affect MUAs that organize posts into threads (conversations), but may look odd to subscribers if your lists are configured to add tags or serial numbers to the Subject. If the point is to discourage resending list posts to third parties, about all you can do is use the anonymous list option to clean all addresses except the list's out of the header. "Full personalization" will substitute the subscriber's address for the list address, but I don't think it has any effect on third party addressees. Steve -- GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization) Sirius Open Source https://www.siriusopensource.com/ Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan

7 months, 1 week

[MM3-users] Re: possible backscatter attack using Mailman3 servers

by David Newman

On 1/3/25 5:44 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote: >> Greetings. On a system running Mailman 3.3.9 and Postfix, I'm seeing >> about 20-30 entries per day in the Postfix queue where it appears a >> Gmail user signs up for a mailing list that requires confirmation, and >> Gmail responds that the user is too busy to handle requests. >> >> There are no publicly advertised email lists on this server, and I >> don't ever see anything in the Mailman logs indicating the user ever >> tried signing up. > > > This is an attack mail bombing the user. The requests that result in the > can come via web or email. Mailman's logging of subscribes has been > missing most events through Mailman 3.3.10. See https://gitlab.com/ > mailman/mailman/-/issues/1143 which will be fixed in 3.3.11, but > subscribes waiting user confirmation still won't be logged. > > However, the message with subject "Please Confirm Your Email Address" > comes from Django allauth so it isn't actually Mailman sending it but > rather Django allauth as a result of a request to sign up for a Django > account at https://mail.example3.com/accounts/signup/. You can probably > find that request in your web server logs, and you may find the user > and/or email in the Django admin UI. Thanks VERY much for this. No such users in the Django UI, but the web server logs have 252 attempts from 132 unique IPv4 addresses registered to different ISPs throughout Europe. So, even though Mailman support for more detailed logging of sub and unsub requests would be useful, it likely would not have helped with attacks from many source IP addresses. > > Since django-mailman3 1.3.6, you can disable these signups by putting > > ACCOUNT_ADAPTER = 'django_mailman3.views.user_adapter.DisableSignupAdapter' > > in your Django settings, but then your users won't be able to sign up > for web accounts. I have made this change. As for not having web accounts, this just means new users cannot sign up to manage their Mailman settings, correct? I presume existing web accounts will continue to work. Thanks again! dn

1 year, 4 months

[MM3-users] Re: Fwd: [Django] ERROR (EXTERNAL IP): Internal Server Error: /archives/search

by Dave Hall

Hello, Please pardon a slightly off-topic comment, but I would like to highlight a part of Odhiambo's post. Heavily nested inline replies also reflect the issue I wish to comment on, so I'm not going to. Granted, I am a slow learner, and perhaps already so mixed up after reading > the myriad HOWTOs for > installing MM3 that are available online. I am tempted to say there are > many like me who are likely to > miss "where to obtain" other settings from. and > Is it possible to modify the documentation to somehow make it obvious (in a > language that a layman can easily understand, I have seen this with several open source projects lately. There's no big picture, just 'hundreds' of cross-linked little bits of disjointed information that almost seem like documentation for individual modules. I once joined a large commercial project for a major US computer company (sorry, I won't share details). They were quite proud of their extensive documentation. The docs for their equivalent of the kernel syscall interface, when printed (two-sided) and stacked, would easily approach 2 meters tall. Yet, every bit of it was incomprehensible unless and until you called the developer and had them explain it to you. The problem that we all have, us humans, is that when we are very familiar with something, like the code we've been working on, it is very hard to describe its purpose to somebody who knows nothing about it. ("It's obvious to me, so it should be obvious to you."). So, a challenge for us all: When writing and reviewing your documentation, imagine that you're explaining your whole project face-to-face to your grandmother, or to anybody who never learned to program. From experience I promise that it's easy once you get the hang of it. Thank you and sorry for the speech. -Dave -- Dave Hall Binghamton University On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 2:54 AM Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 9:34 PM Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> wrote: > > > On 1/27/23 05:53, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:48 PM Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> Note that when following > > >> https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/install/virtualenv.html you > create > > >> /etc/mailman3/settings.py and it contains > > >> ``` > > >> from mailman_web.settings.base import * > > >> from mailman_web.settings.mailman import * > > >> ``` > > >> to establish a base set of settings that can be augmented or > overridden > > >> in /etc/mailman3/settings.py. mailman_web.settings.mailman in turn > > contains > > >> ``` > > >> HAYSTACK_CONNECTIONS = { > > >> 'default': { > > >> 'ENGINE': 'haystack.backends.whoosh_backend.WhooshEngine', > > >> 'PATH': "fulltext_index", > > >> ``` > > >> which is a relative path for fulltext_index and may need to be set to > an > > >> absolute path. > > >> > > > > > > Mi Mark, > > > > > > I have read this page - > > > https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/install/virtualenv.html and > further > > - > > > > > > https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/install/virtualenv.html#initial-config > > > - without clicking any external links. > > > I still don't see the HAYSTACK_CONNECTIONS in the settings.py included > > on > > > that page. > > > I am missing something obvious, no? > > > > > > Please reread what I wrote above. HAYSTACK_CONNECTIONS is not in the > > suggested settings.py but it is in mailman_web.settings.mailman and is > > imported by the suggested settings.py. > > > I have reread what you wrote now and I'm beginning to get the hang of this > method. > My observation is that it can only be _obvious_ to someone very familiar > with Python config > to decipher that *additional* settings *that can be augmented or > overridden > in /etc/mailman3/settings.py* can be obtained from: > /PATH-TO/mailman_web/settings/{base|mailman}.py after they have noticed > these two lines in > the sample settings given in /etc/mailman3/settings.py: > > from mailman_web.settings.base import *from > mailman_web.settings.mailman import * > > [At first instance, it is not obvious that mailman_web.settings.base and > mailman_web.settings.mailman are > actually paths in Python - which magically translates to > mailman_web/settings/base.py and mailman_web/settings/mailman.py] > Granted, I am a slow learner, and perhaps already so mixed up after reading > the myriad HOWTOs for > installing MM3 that are available online. I am tempted to say there are > many like me who are likely to > miss "where to obtain" other settings from. > For example, my mind all along has been tuned to having a settings_local.py > for overriding the settings.py. > However, with this particular documentation, it would appear that > everything is intended to just go into /etc/mailman3/settings.py. > > Is it possible to modify the documentation to somehow make it obvious (in a > language that a layman can easily understand, > that those two "import *" _DO establish a base set of settings that can be > augmented or overridden in /etc/mailman3/settings.py_ > and that those settings are in what file(s) ? > > I am not saying @Johannes Rohr <johannes(a)rohr.org> is a layman like me, > but > I think that is what hit him. > > > -- > Best regards, > Odhiambo WASHINGTON, > Nairobi,KE > +254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223 > "Oh, the cruft.", egrep -v '^$|^.*#' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :-) > _______________________________________________ > 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 kdhall(a)binghamton.edu >

3 years, 3 months

[MM3-users] Re: Disabled by bounce

by Allan Hansen

Thank you, Mark. By "However, all of the above can be avoided without any DMARC changes by enabling bounce probes." Do you mean that I can get rid of the 'From' mangling, which has been a frequent source of embarrassment because the list address is captured and reused by type-ahead when sending non-list messages and those messages instead going to 1000 subscribers. __ Allan On 2/1/23, 09:59, "Mark Sapiro" <mark(a)msapiro.net> wrote: On 1/31/23 22:32, Allan Hansen wrote: > Hi all, > > Apparently Google just started to get very aggressive about DKIM settings. Some hundreds of my subscribers have had their subscriptions disabled because of Google's bounces. > > I tried to 'Enable' some of them, expecting that their bounce scores would be reset, but when I list the users, the bounce scores are still 5. > > Please advise. Will enabling them without the bounce score being reset just cause the server to disable them again. Yes, Google has started enforcing a policy which is effectively DMARC p=reject even for senders whose domains don't publish DMARC p=reject or quarantine. To avoid this issue, you may need to set DMARC Mitigate unconditionally to Yes as well as DMARC mitigation action to Replace From: with list address if it isn't already. As far as enabling without resetting the bounce score is concerned, I think you are correct that they will just be disabled again on the next bounce. This is a bug and should be fixed. However, all of the above can be avoided without any DMARC changes by enabling bounce probes. in the [mta] section of mailman.cfg, set ``` verp_probes: yes ``` Since the probe is sent From: the list's domain, it should pass googles SPF and DKIM checks and not bounce. -- 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: mailman-users(a)mailman3.org <https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/<a href=>/message/56WVO6NIOGOBAOOS2B4YCIDJN7VCIXTF/">https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-users@mailman3.org/message… This message sent to hansen(a)rc.org

3 years, 3 months

[MM3-users] Re: Held messages: Long time waiating for response of the Mailman API

by Stephan Krinetzki

Mark Sapiro wrote: > On 1/26/22 00:11, Stephan Krinetzki wrote: > > After we enabled the "slow query log", we got in the postgresql database the following output: > > 2022-01-25 12:49:41.538 CET [16126] LOG: unexpected EOF on client connection with an open transaction > > 2022-01-25 15:34:36.047 CET [16864] LOG: duration: 30760.028 ms statement: DELETE FROM pendedkeyvalue WHERE pendedkeyvalue.id = XXX > > 2022-01-25 15:34:36.047 CET [3900] LOG: duration: 9372.471 ms statement: DELETE FROM pendedkeyvalue WHERE pendedkeyvalue.id = XXX > > 2022-01-25 16:42:07.243 CET [3900] LOG: unexpected EOF on client connection with an open transaction > > > > > > Pretty sounds like a database problem? > > The unexpected EOF is because the gunicorn worker timed out and was killed. > There are two DELETE FROM pendedkeyvalue WHERE pendedkeyvalue.id = XXX > transactions because the first one timed out. These came from > https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/-/blob/master/src/mailman/app/moderator.p... > The accept action is processed and ultimately we get to > https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/-/blob/master/src/mailman/app/moderator.p... > and that in turn is doing the DELETE at > https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/-/blob/master/src/mailman/model/pending.p... > There must be some kind of database locking causing this, but I have no > clue as to what it might be. If you haven't done so, I would stop all > the mailman services and the database server and then start them again. > I don't know if that would help, but it might. We did this and nothing changed. I even tried to lookup up potential DB locks, but they are no locks in the database. Side note: Wie have a 37GB big Database with ~4.000 Mailinglists and ~70.000 addresses > > sometimes the log (mailmansuite.log) show us this error > > That too is from the gunicorn worker timing out and being killed. Okay. We already set the timout of the gunicorn process of the mailmancore higher (6 Min) I think there is a communication problem in the chain: apache -> uwsgi -> mailmancore/API ->database but i can't dig deeper there. Let me know if i should provide more details or logs

4 years, 4 months

[MM3-users] Re: mm3 installation question

by Stephen J. Turnbull

Odhiambo Washington writes: > Mark Sapiro writes: > > Some of the `path` settings are probably not in the same order as > > in that file. The > > > > ``` > > path('mailman3/', include('postorius.urls')), > > path('archives/', include('hyperkitty.urls')), > > ``` > > settings should come after the > > ``` > > path('postorius/', include('postorius.urls')), > > path('hyperkitty/', include('hyperkitty.urls')), > > ``` > > settings (unfortunately, mailman-web 0.0.8 has these in the wrong > > order). Or you can just delete the 'postorius/' and 'hyperkitty/' > > ones or you can add > > ``` > > ProxyPass "/postorius" "http://127.0.0.1:8000/postorius" > > ProxyPass "/hyperkitty" "http://127.0.0.1:8000/hyperkitty" > > ``` > > to your Apache config. > The odd thing is that the HOWTO that he followed never involves the > manipulation of any urls.py at all - it's not even mentioned at any > point. So obviously the issue is caused by something else and I > suspect something within Apache needs to be re-evaluated in the > guide. I believe this is the Apache configuration the OP is using: <IfModule mod_proxy.c> ProxyPreserveHost On ProxyPass "/mailman3" "http://127.0.0.1:8000/mailman3" ProxyPass "/archives" "http://127.0.0.1:8000/archives" ProxyPass "/accounts" "http://127.0.0.1:8000/accounts" ProxyPass "/admin" "http://127.0.0.1:8000/admin" ProxyPass "/user-profile" "http://127.0.0.1:8000/user-profile" </IfModule> Note that Apache doesn't know about the "/postorius" and "/hyperkitty" URI paths. It is quite unclear to me how this works at all with either the path('mailman3/', include('postorius.urls')), path('archives/', include('hyperkitty.urls')), path('postorius/', include('postorius.urls')), path('hyperkitty/', include('hyperkitty.urls')), version of urls.py or the reverse order version path('postorius/', include('postorius.urls')), path('hyperkitty/', include('hyperkitty.urls')), path('mailman3/', include('postorius.urls')), path('archives/', include('hyperkitty.urls')), I think Mark must have a configuration with ProxyPass "/" "http://127.0.0.1:8000/" in the Apache configuration in mind? Or an alias or rewrite rule. Otherwise I don't see how "/postorius" and "/hyperkitty" paths ever get transmitted to the WSGI server. Steve

2 years, 2 months

[MM3-users] Re: user mail not accepted

by Christian Stalberg

No. there was no response received by the user a la "results of your email commands" message. Simply the original email sent to the list. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Sapiro <mark(a)msapiro.net> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 5:25 PM To: mailman-users(a)mailman3.org Subject: [MM3-users] Re: user mail not accepted On 4/26/21 5:00 PM, Christian Stalberg via Mailman-users wrote: >>From smtp.log > > Apr 26 00:17:39 2021 (807) ('127.0.0.1', 38370) Data: b'DATA' > Apr 26 00:17:39 2021 (807) ('127.0.0.1', 38370) Data: b'QUIT' > Apr 26 00:17:39 2021 (807) ('127.0.0.1', 38370) connection lost Apr 26 > 00:17:39 2021 (807) Connection lost during _handle_client() Apr 26 > 00:18:11 2021 (809) > <019301d73a31$8e8e54e0$abaafea0$(a)ncboliviapartners.org> smtp to > ncpoa(a)lists.ccalternatives.org for 83 recips, completed in > 29.13376259803772 seconds Apr 26 00:18:11 2021 (809) > <019301d73a31$8e8e54e0$abaafea0$(a)ncboliviapartners.org> post to > ncpoa(a)lists.ccalternatives.org from christian(a)ncboliviapartners.org, > 5811 bytes Apr 26 00:18:11 2021 (809) > <161939626169.810.9530678025639681522(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > smtp to ncpoa(a)lists.ccalternatives.org for 1 recips, completed in > 0.0420069694519043 seconds > Apr 26 00:18:11 2021 (809) > <161939626169.810.9530678025639681522(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > post to ncpoa(a)lists.ccalternatives.org from > ncpoa-bounces(a)lists.ccalternatives.org, 869 bytes Apr 26 11:52:22 2021 > (819) > <161943793957.929.15640398646519288095(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > smtp to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org for 1 recips, completed in > 0.22335004806518555 seconds > Apr 26 11:52:22 2021 (819) > <161943793957.929.15640398646519288095(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > post to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org from > ssan-bounces(a)lists.ccalternatives.org, > 765 bytes > Apr 26 11:52:22 2021 (819) > <161943793960.929.13309139087156940549(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > smtp to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org for 2 recips, completed in > 0.05862092971801758 seconds > Apr 26 11:52:22 2021 (819) > <161943793960.929.13309139087156940549(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > post to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org from > noreply(a)lists.ccalternatives.org, 810 bytes Apr 26 11:55:22 2021 (819) > <161943812108.929.10391982256874011271(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > smtp to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org for 1 recips, completed in > 0.1459965705871582 seconds > Apr 26 11:55:22 2021 (819) > <161943812108.929.10391982256874011271(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > post to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org from > ssan-confirm+2144530ad102026077911eac6eb574bcbd04be92(a)lists.ccalternat > ssan-confirm+ives.o > rg, 1526 bytes > Apr 26 12:01:30 2021 (817) Available AUTH mechanisms: LOGIN(builtin) > PLAIN(builtin) > Apr 26 12:01:30 2021 (817) Peer: ('127.0.0.1', 38556) Apr 26 12:01:30 > 2021 (817) ('127.0.0.1', 38556) handling connection Apr 26 12:01:30 > 2021 (817) ('127.0.0.1', 38556) Data: b'LHLO > zarathustra.ccalternatives.org' > Apr 26 12:01:30 2021 (817) ('127.0.0.1', 38556) Data: b'MAIL > FROM:<christian(a)sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com>' > Apr 26 12:01:30 2021 (817) ('127.0.0.1', 38556) sender: > christian(a)sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com > Apr 26 12:01:30 2021 (817) ('127.0.0.1', 38556) Data: b'RCPT > TO:<ssan-confirm+2144530ad102026077911eac6eb574bcbd04be92(a)lists.ccalte > rnativ > es.org>' > Apr 26 12:01:30 2021 (817) ('127.0.0.1', 38556) recip: > ssan-confirm+2144530ad102026077911eac6eb574bcbd04be92(a)lists.ccalternat > ssan-confirm+ives.o > rg > Apr 26 12:01:30 2021 (817) ('127.0.0.1', 38556) Data: b'DATA' > Apr 26 12:01:30 2021 (817) ('127.0.0.1', 38556) Data: b'QUIT' It looks like the above 12:01:30 are the relevant entries, and that message was sent to ssan-confirm+2144530ad102026077911eac6eb574bcbd04be92(a)lists.ccalternativ ssan-confirm+es.org which is not the list, but the list's -confirm address. Was the response received by the user a "results of your email commands" message? > Apr 26 12:01:30 2021 (817) ('127.0.0.1', 38556) connection lost Apr 26 > 12:01:30 2021 (817) Connection lost during _handle_client() Apr 26 > 12:01:34 2021 (819) > <161943849287.814.5890052642238479423(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > smtp to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org for 2 recips, completed in > 0.06680631637573242 seconds > Apr 26 12:01:34 2021 (819) > <161943849287.814.5890052642238479423(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > post to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org from > noreply(a)lists.ccalternatives.org, 821 bytes Apr 26 12:01:34 2021 (819) > <161943849292.814.6140111398379700592(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > smtp to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org for 1 recips, completed in > 0.04269862174987793 seconds > Apr 26 12:01:34 2021 (819) > <161943849292.814.6140111398379700592(a)zarathustra.ccalternatives.org> > post to ssan(a)lists.ccalternatives.org from > ssan-request(a)lists.ccalternatives.org, > 1335 bytes > > > Message sent that only the user receives: What I wanted to see was not the message sent to the list, but the message received by the one user from the list. If you are saying this message is that, it didn't come from any Mailman list. > Return-Path: <christian(a)sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com> > Delivered-To: ces(a)ecovillage.cc > Received: from box.ecovillage.cc ([127.0.0.1]) > by box.ecovillage.cc with LMTP id MDucNBythmCTSwAAMoO61A > for <ces(a)ecovillage.cc>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 05:07:56 -0700 > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on > box.ecovillage.cc > X-Spam-Level: > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, > DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham > autolearn_force=no > version=3.4.2 > X-Spam-Report: > * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP > * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message > * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature > * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not > necessarily > * valid > * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from > * author's domain > X-Spam-Score: -1.1 > Received: from authenticated-user (box.ecovillage.cc [45.79.28.18]) > (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 > bits)) > (No client certificate requested) > by box.ecovillage.cc (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EADF3E8CC > for <ssan(a)lists.naturalintelligence.us>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 05:07:54 > -0700 (PDT) > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; > d=sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com; s=mail; t=1619438876; > bh=1M7F/uIS0bNG6cWjecy/a9QjskrHVwJHkjWRv+ffpM4=; > h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:From; > b=jXOswVZgFeHBB+sjIDqVkNBQqIbfZCj9ZUfpVwl10NQEkGaoxckPHNOKT6x9zIqsW > BZ7iZqqi2mWprVQ8LrK48Lp7gvCQ/ipqspMeLt3t+uljzTtryHmV6uJFEAU3hqM33Y > nQqX6Z8la8Ko40F9Ayb4h4e/MOfPdA4nadgf5hZzt/DzPFZvzUbG3V8lWcHuyJNA2y > SQkhbNubQ6iNEEB0SyBjoOjl3g3LVxjxY+9kMGGmX+1PFfW90CpDDShRmKkkscEWaA > NiV0fX6U5LENBBnc6Q9ImLgXuaLdCqlBRBumJBk+eUUr007rpXXVAPck2NvUzGyM2v > kNNGlT68hGzEg== > From: <christian(a)sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com> > To: <ssan(a)lists.naturalintelligence.us> > References: > In-Reply-To: > Subject: How US chemical industry lobbying and cash defeated > regulation in Trump era > Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 05:07:37 -0700 > Message-ID: > <020501d73a94$cbe17440$63a45cc0$(a)sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0206_01D73A5A.1F831170" > Thread-Index: Adc6h7I/qzBKx1yOT6aPOuipppacoQACatZAAADW1wA= > Content-Language: en-us > > How US chemical industry lobbying and cash defeated regulation in > Trump era Industry's congressional allies defeated nearly all PFAS > legislation while the Trump EPA killed, watered down or slowalked new > rules > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/26/us-chemical-compan > ies-lo > bbying-donation-defeated-regulation > > -- 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/

5 years, 1 month

[MM3-users] Re: SPF check fails for lists subdomain

by Jan Eden

On 2023-01-05 11:13, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:56 AM Jan Eden via Mailman-users < > mailman-users(a)mailman3.org> wrote: > > > On 2023-01-04 15:07, Mark Sapiro wrote: > > > On 1/4/23 14:02, Jan Eden via Mailman-users wrote: > > > > Although I could specify the IP address in my SPF records directly (as > > > > you suggested), I do hope that my understanding of DNS records laid out > > > > above is not entirely misguided. My current setup does work as expected > > > > for eden.one, after all. > > > > > > As I said at < > > https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-users@mailman3.org/message… > > > > > > I was misreading your DNS and now I am as puzzled as you about the > > failure. > > > > It gets even more mysterious. I tried sending messages from both > > lists.eden.one and janeden.net (my other domain) to a gmail account and > > to another mail provider. Both messages passed the SPF checks on both > > services (s. the relevant headers quoted below). Now because I send > > those messages via my SMTP user (smtpuser(a)eden.one) and use SRS, the SPF > > check operates (and succeeds) on e.g. > > > > srs0=jdm+=5c=lists.eden.one=testlist-bounces+gmailuser=googlemail.com(a)eden.one > > (and not on somethingsomething(a)lists.eden.one or > > somethingsomething(a)janeden.net) Could this be the reason for the failed > > SPF checks in Yahoo's and Google's DMARC reports? > > > - Jan > > Might you be willing to use proven tools instead of trying so hard to > understand the myth? > > I use https://easydmarc.com/tools#spf-tools > It allows me to generate, lookup, test SPF, DKIM, DMARC, etc. I did use adequate tools to generate and test my DNS records, and this is why the DMARC reports quoted in my initial message are mysterious to me. Trying hard to solve a mystery might not be productive in every case, but I do not want to stop being curious. - Jan

3 years, 4 months

Search results for query "sapiro"