headers
Mark Sapiro | 1 Sep 2006 01:01

Re: Mailman with exim4 on Debian Sarge

Oliver König wrote:

>I am pretty sure that the mailman config is right and that 
>there is a problem with the exim4 config. Non local subscribers cannot post 
>to the list. The Exim4 log always says that relay is not permitted. 

Yes, that would be an Exim config problem.

>Here are parts of my exim4 config:
<snip>
># Domains that your lists are in - colon separated list
># you may wish to add these into local_domains as well
>domainlist MAILMAN_DOMAINS=news.server.windfinder.com

And what about server.windfinder.com? And did you add it to
local_domains?

<snip>
>mailman_router:
>driver = accept
>require_files = MAILMAN_HOME/lists/$local_part/config.pck
>local_part_suffix_optional
>local_part_suffix = -bounces : -bounces+* : \
>-confirm+* : -join : -leave : \
>-owner : -request : -admin
>transport = mailman_transport

The above is incomplete. It is not the cause of your problem, but see
<http://www.exim.org/howto/mailman21.html#roconf> for what the
mailman_router: should be. In particular, the above is missing
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mark Sapiro | 1 Sep 2006 01:22

Re: View Subscriber list format

Tom Kavanaugh wrote:
>
>Is there a way to incorporate this change across all exisitng mail lists?
>I looked at commands in mailman/bin but did not find any command that could
>do this for me. Or, am I missing something?

First, you want to put

DEFAULT_OBSCURE_ADDRESSES = No

in mm_cfg.py so new lists will be created with obscure_address = No.

Then you have two choices for existing lists, bin/withlist and
bin/config_list. config_list is easier to describe so, put the
following 1 line in a file

obscure_addresses = 0

and run a shell script like

#!/bin/sh
for list in `bin/list_lists --bare`
do bin/config_list -i file $list
done

--

-- 
Mark Sapiro <msapiro <at> value.net>       The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Brad Knowles | 1 Sep 2006 01:09
Gravatar

Re: query re "message has implicit destination"(devils advocate!)

At 10:06 AM -0700 2006-08-31, John W. Baxter quoted "Brad Knowles" 
<brad <at> stop.mail-abuse.org>:

>>  We're not a commercial environment, and we've actually had pretty bad
>>  experiences with people/companies that are in commercial environments
>>  taking our software and making unapproved modifications to it, or
>>  providing the software to their customers but *not* providing
>>  adequate support to those customers.
>
>  "unapproved" may be a bit strong.  Perhaps "un-vetted" would be closer?

Actually, I think either "unapproved" or "unauthorized" are the most 
appropriate terms.  After all, the code is released under the GPL, 
and anyone who is making modifications to that code and then making 
their modified version available to their customers (or otherwise 
benefiting from those modifications) are supposed to contribute the 
source to their changes back to the community.  But CPanel has not 
done this, neither has Plesk, nor Apple.

Now, in a way, Apple gives back to the project more than they 
probably realize, but that's not the same thing.

So, while we don't make that big a deal of this issue, I think I'm 
actually being reasonably lenient on these companies.

>>  I just recently wrote a FAQ entry on this subject -- see FAQ 1.32.
>
>  Quite nicely done!

Thanks!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 22 comments |
headers
Brad Knowles | 1 Sep 2006 01:24
Gravatar

Re: query re "message has implicit destination"(devils advocate!)

At 8:44 PM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:

>  The point I was illustrating is that if you have to justify the rationale
>  behind a default setting to a third-party-decision-maker -- what is the most
>  appropriate and concise response?

This is the key point that was not coming across to me, at least not 
until much later in the exchange.  Speaking only for myself, I 
seriously misunderstood what you were asking and why, which greatly 
colored my responses.

I'm still not certain that we've given you the best answer to this 
question, but I'm hoping that you'll be able to synthesize something 
that you will then be able to contribute back to the community, and 
we will hopefully be able to avoid these kinds of problems in the 
future -- at least with respect to this one particular issue.

--

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad <at> stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

  Founding Individual Sponsor of LOPSA.  See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Brad Knowles | 1 Sep 2006 01:21
Gravatar

Re: query re "message has implicit destination"(devils advocate!)

At 8:25 PM +0200 2006-08-31, Bretton Vine wrote:

>  I view it differently. I have had great feedback and I highly doubt either
>  of the parties mentioned viewed a response as a "restraining, difficult
>  exercise". I /really/ use lists to their full advantage and with some in
>  particular have never felt my input or response was an exercise in patience
>  or restraint. It's a labour of love. You do it because it's what you do.

Maybe I'm getting better at this process than I have been in the 
past, but I most definitely held back quite a bit in my responses.  I 
did allow myself to get a bit testy, but that's about it.

It took me a while to realize that you were more playing devil's 
advocate (on behalf of your boss) as opposed to actually believing in 
some of the things you were saying.

And yes, a great deal of context is lost in e-mail.  Remember that 
about 90% of all human communication is not verbalized, and of the 
remainder about 90% is more in the tone of how you respond as opposed 
to the actual words that are chosen.  Pretty much all of that is lost 
in e-mail, leaving only the words -- and about 1% of what would 
normally be conveyed in a natural human conversation.

>  That's not to say I don't appreciate a response (some time after the fact)
>  with another avenue to explore (thanks Mark) but compare the difference
>  between "you're harping on about nothing" to "have you tried this?". The
>  latter (in hindsight) is blindingly obvious -- and yet no-one else let their
>  sub-conscious ponder the problem a while longer.

A lot of my responses were defensive in nature, responding to the way
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
stephen | 1 Sep 2006 07:32
Picon
Favicon

Re: query re "message has implicit destination"(devils advocate!)

Brad Knowles writes:
 > At 10:06 AM -0700 2006-08-31, John W. Baxter quoted "Brad Knowles" 
 > <brad <at> stop.mail-abuse.org>:
 > 
 > >>  We're not a commercial environment, and we've actually had pretty bad
 > >>  experiences with people/companies that are in commercial environments
 > >>  taking our software and making unapproved modifications to it, or
 > >>  providing the software to their customers but *not* providing
 > >>  adequate support to those customers.
 > >
 > >  "unapproved" may be a bit strong.  Perhaps "un-vetted" would be closer?
 > 
 > Actually, I think either "unapproved" or "unauthorized" are the most 
 > appropriate terms.  After all, the code is released under the GPL, 

Excuse me?  The GPL *explicitly* approves and authorizes (not to
mention implicitly encourages) modification and redistribution without
conditions other than providing source.  That's exactly what "license"
means.

Has anybody at Mailman asked CPanel, Plesk, or Apple for source and
been refused?  Or one of their customers, and been refused because
they were under NDA?  If we haven't asked, how can we bitch?

 > and anyone who is making modifications to that code and then making 
 > their modified version available to their customers (or otherwise 
 > benefiting from those modifications) are supposed to contribute the 
 > source to their changes back to the community.  But CPanel has not 
 > done this, neither has Plesk, nor Apple.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
Brad Knowles | 1 Sep 2006 08:39
Gravatar

Re: query re "message has implicit destination"(devils advocate!)

At 2:32 PM +0900 2006-09-01, <stephen <at> xemacs.org> wrote:

>  Excuse me?  The GPL *explicitly* approves and authorizes (not to
>  mention implicitly encourages) modification and redistribution without
>  conditions other than providing source.  That's exactly what "license"
>  means.

Right, and they haven't provided the source.

>  Has anybody at Mailman asked CPanel, Plesk, or Apple for source and
>  been refused?  Or one of their customers, and been refused because
>  they were under NDA?  If we haven't asked, how can we bitch?

I don't know about CPanel or Plesk, but I'd be willing to bet that 
they would not be willing to provide the source code to their changes 
to anyone, although a knowledgeable person could extract the source 
code differences by comparing what is shipped by the commercial 
vendor against our code, although it might take some work to figure 
out which version of our code they should be comparing against.

I'm pretty sure that I know what the answer would be from Apple.  You 
see, the primary problem is that the Server Group is totally and 
completely unresponsive to their own high-paying Platinum-account 
customers (i.e., major Universities and businesses with thousands or 
tens of thousands of machines), and likewise completely unresponsive 
even to internal people at Apple who are working in other groups.

You'd have to ask Barry as to whether or not he has actually 
contacted these groups to ask them to contribute their code changes 
back to the community, or if anyone has gone to the FSF lawyers to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Brad Knowles | 1 Sep 2006 08:47
Gravatar

Re: query re "message has implicit destination"(devils advocate!)

At 1:39 AM -0500 2006-09-01, Brad Knowles wrote:

>  If you want to get into a diatribe about licensing, please be aware that
>  I'm a BSD guy, and I've found myself surrounded by a bunch of GPL types,
>  so license-wise I've tended to say pretty quiet.

Sorry, I meant "... stay pretty quiet".  That was a bad typo to have 
in such a place.

--

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad <at> stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

  Founding Individual Sponsor of LOPSA.  See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bretton Vine | 1 Sep 2006 11:36

Re: query re "message has implicit destination"(devils advocate!)

Brad Knowles said the following on 2006/09/01 01:24 AM:
> This is the key point that was not coming across to me, at least not
> until much later in the exchange.  Speaking only for myself, I seriously
> misunderstood what you were asking and why, which greatly colored my
> responses.

My apologies, I could have been clearer. I did try and fork the thread with
the inclusion of (devils advocate!) in the subject line.

> I'm still not certain that we've given you the best answer to this
> question, but I'm hoping that you'll be able to synthesize something
> that you will then be able to contribute back to the community, and we
> will hopefully be able to avoid these kinds of problems in the future --
> at least with respect to this one particular issue.

I may not have what I was looking specifically, but I do have a clearer of
how to approach things in future.

I've had to edit context significantly for various reasons (brevity being
one) but it comes down this. We've had a solution in place for 10 years that
just works but doesn't offer us the functionality we need or clients want
any more. I've been on mailman run lists for ~6 years and found the setup to
be more useful and when the time came for a new server had to make a number
of decisions based on skills available, difference in volumes of legitimate
mail and spam today (compared to setup of ageing server from 96) and new
things to be learnt using a different OS and architecture.

A mistake appears to be the perception (prior to installation and initial
use phase) that Mailman was Majordomo with a web-gui and archives. It's not.
It's a different product and approach entirely. This realisation is hammered
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Bretton Vine | 1 Sep 2006 11:51

Re: query re "message has implicit destination"(devils advocate!)

Brad Knowles said the following on 2006/09/01 08:39 AM:
> If you want to get into a diatribe about licensing, please be aware 
> that I'm a BSD guy, and I've found myself surrounded by a bunch of 
> GPL types, so license-wise I've tended to say pretty quiet.

Note, the issues raised are not unique to Mailman or other popular GPL
products. There is an undercurrent of concern over how Ubuntu is building on
Dedian but not necessarily contributing back, and developer dissatisfaction
at the Debian level moving to the more trendy and dynamic Ubuntu front.

The GPL approach has obviously been useful (and popular) but I find many
'just solve the problem' type individuals seem to favour the BSD approach.
Kind of "you're welcome to use and modify, just don't blame us for any
consequences", whereas with the GPL it's more about a zealous popular
uprising against corporate overlords.

I don't think there is any obligation for someone who changes the source of
a GPL product to give the changes back to the original developers, but there
might be a case of 'good manners' at play in that it is polite to do so. I'm
sure developers welcome input even if they choose not to include it in the
primary code distribution.

One can however approach someone who has modified the source and request the
modified source but there may be trouble getting a diff version of the
modifications made and reasons why.

However it's probably a case of motivation. Developers would need to be
motivated to chase one of the organisations mentioned and it would be
time-consuming and require effort when they might prefer to be coding.
Obviously a gap here for a champion from within the user base to pursue the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane