The link to include legend on the membership management page is:
http://localhost.localdomain/mailman/admin/rushtalk/members/list?legend=yes
Why is that not defaulting to the real host and how do I fix it? TIA.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
I am in the process of migrating mailman to a new server. It seems to
have been done correctly but mailman is unable to write to the archive
files.
IOError: [Errno 13] Permission denied:
'/var/lib/mailman/archives/private/rushtalk/2020-February.txt'
I ran check_perms and it found no issues. Howe
On 2/25/20 5:49 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
IOError: [Errno 13] Permission denied:
'/var/lib/mailman/archives/private/rushtalk/2020-February.txt'
I ran check_perms and it found no issues. However, when I look at the
ownership of the archives I get this:
-rw-r--r--. 1 root mailman 72404 Feb
On 2/25/20 5:36 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
The link to include legend on the membership management page is:
http://localhost.localdomain/mailman/admin/rushtalk/members/list?legend=yes
Why is that not defaulting to the real host and how do I fix it? TIA.
Have you tried running:
/mailman_install
On 2/25/20 6:34 AM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> On 2/25/20 5:49 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>> IOError: [Errno 13] Permission denied:
>> '/var/lib/mailman/archives/private/rushtalk/2020-February.txt'
>>
>> I ran check_perms and it found no issues. However, when I look at the
>> ownership of the archive
On 2/25/2020 9:37 AM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> On 2/25/20 5:36 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>> The link to include legend on the membership management page is:
>>
>> http://localhost.localdomain/mailman/admin/rushtalk/members/list?legend=yes
>>
>>
>> Why is that not defaulting to the real host and how
On 2/25/2020 12:12 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
> On 2/25/20 6:34 AM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2/25/20 5:49 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>>> IOError: [Errno 13] Permission denied:
>>> '/var/lib/mailman/archives/private/rushtalk/2020-February.txt'
>>>
>>> I ran check_perms and it found no issues. Howeve
On 2/25/20 10:25 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
> So shouldn't 'check_perms -f' have fixed that?
check_perms is not perfect. See below for more.
> This is a server used strictly for mailman. There are only 2 users with
> access so I am not worried about the caveat in that article. It looks
> like yo
