* Barry Warsaw :
[...]
> Here's the plan: Mark is going to put a 2.1.13 bug fix release out soon
> and will continue to fix only the most important bugs on the 2.1 branch.
> He'll forward port those fixes to the 2.2 branch for the few people who
> are running it from source, but there will never be
As you know, Mailman 2.1 has long been in maintenance-only mode.
Mailman 2.2 was where we were going to add new features and update the
user interface, without changing the basic model. Mailman 3 was where
we were going to fix the model and modernize the architecture to allow
for better e
On Nov 1, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
If you really want Mailman to do the authentication, you can either
use the Approved header field, which is not very secure, or you can
use the 3rd-party patch to use public-key signatures which somebody
else mentioned. I'm pretty sure that
Hien HUYNH HUU writes:
> Hi Stephen,
>I can't do that because may be the sender is on another MTA and mailman
> server can't force they do an authentication.
>Is this a weak point of Mailman ?
No, this is a weak point of your MTA. The MTA has all the information
needed, and in princ
Hien HUYNH HUU wrote:
>Hi Stephen,
> I can't do that because may be the sender is on another MTA and mailman
> server can't force they do an authentication.
> Is this a weak point of Mailman ?
They still could connect and authenticate to the Mailman server's MTA
for list posting purposes.
Hi,
HOw would you propose such verification of the authenticity of a sender be
performed in Mailman?
It's hard enough to do anyway, but as has been pointed out, it's probably
more the function of the MTA than of Mailman. The MTA can do things like
insist on client-side certificates and oth
Hi Stephen,
I can't do that because may be the sender is on another MTA and mailman
server can't force they do an authentication.
Is this a weak point of Mailman ?
Best regards,
Huu Hien
From: Stephen J. Turnbull [step...@xemacs.org]
Sent:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>Thomas Gramstad writes:
>
> > > The message is an uncaught bounce notification. This says either the
> > > list posts are being sent to
> > > stoppdld-boun...@mailman.kunnskapsallmenning.no (or possibly
> > > stoppdld-ad...@mailman.kunnskapsallmenning.no) instead of to
