Re: [luv-main] [luv-talk] Some decent speakers for PC's
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Craig Sanders wrote:
i'm cc-ing this back to luv-talk (mostly because i hope someone knows of a decent - i.e. low tosser ratio - audio web site / forum). hopefully anyone replying will remember to cc their response to you.
And back to luv-main. Could we do something about finding the setting in the new mailing list software to remove the nasty "[luv-main] [luv-talk] [luv-main]" subject line cruft that will no doubt appear once this ends up back on the luv-main list? I fear that it's been a month now, and might almost become accepted behaviour to keep munging the subject line like that. And then it's only a short path down the track to LUV-main become a web-forum <shudder>. -- Tim Connors
Quoting Tim Connors (tconnors@rather.puzzling.org):
Could we do something about finding the setting in the new mailing list software to remove the nasty "[luv-main] [luv-talk] [luv-main]" subject line cruft that will no doubt appear once this ends up back on the luv-main list?
If our honoured listadmins wish to disable Mailman's Subject header 'tag' default, they will find it on General Options, 'Prefix for subject line of list postings'. -- Cheers, Linux: Good, fast, AND cheap. Rick (longtime GNU Mailman listadmin, elsewhere) Moen rick@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80)
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:13:05AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Tim Connors (tconnors@rather.puzzling.org):
Could we do something about finding the setting in the new mailing list software to remove the nasty "[luv-main] [luv-talk] [luv-main]" subject line cruft that will no doubt appear once this ends up back on the luv-main list?
If our honoured listadmins wish to disable Mailman's Subject header 'tag' default, they will find it on General Options, 'Prefix for subject line of list postings'.
or do the whole lot in one go on the command line (as root or user 'list') with: for LIST in $(list_lists --bare) ; do echo "subject_prefix = ''" | config_list -i /dev/stdin $LIST done NOTE: tested on my own mailman lists and proven to work. theoretically, I could do that on the LUV list server. but i won't unless asked to do so by the committee. i've only been authorised to work on importing the old LUV list archives into pipermail (which has been on my TODO list for too long, got busy at work and then i was sick for most of the last week and a half), not to do anything else. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #65: system needs to be rebooted
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
or do the whole lot in one go on the command line (as root or user 'list') with:
for LIST in $(list_lists --bare) ; do echo "subject_prefix = ''" | config_list -i /dev/stdin $LIST done
Neatly done, sir.
i've only been authorised to work on importing the old LUV list archives into pipermail (which has been on my TODO list for too long, got busy at work and then i was sick for most of the last week and a half), not to do anything else.
In case it will help: http://lists.svlug.org/archives/volunteers/2011q3/003803.html (Explanation provided contains one embarrassing error: I should have su'd to the mailman user, rather than root. Then, I would not have had to chown a directory to mailman.)
Tim Connors <tconnors@rather.puzzling.org> wrote:
Could we do something about finding the setting in the new mailing list software to remove the nasty "[luv-main] [luv-talk] [luv-main]" subject line cruft that will no doubt appear once this ends up back on the luv-main list? I fear that it's been a month now, and might almost become accepted behaviour to keep munging the subject line like that. And then it's only a short path down the track to LUV-main become a web-forum <shudder>.
I'm sure the Luv mailing list administrators would gladly accept help from anyone who knows mailman and who can be trusted to do reliable work. I'm not in the former category, however, having never administered a list. I agree that removing those [luv-main] etc., annotations from the subject line would be a move in the right direction. They're annoying. I dislike Web fora so much that I won't use them unless there is a truly compelling reason to do so. The problem is that a Web forum forces you to use its user interface rather than one chosen by you I'll gladly take mail, NNTP news, XMPP, IRC, StatusNet or anything else that has a protocol behind it and a good range of client software.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
I agree that removing those [luv-main] etc., annotations from the subject line would be a move in the right direction. They're annoying.
They are also the cause of the DKIM failures that you mentioned recently that got you unsubscribed from luv-talk. Are there any common Unix MUAs that don't support header rewriting nowadays? One of the help messages that appears when starting kmail describes how to change inbound mail to have such a subject annotation. Also most people use IMAP to get their mail, so they can direct the LUV mail to a different IMAP folder either through subscribing via a different address or by server side filters. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
They are also the cause of the DKIM failures that you mentioned recently that got you unsubscribed from luv-talk.
I've just had more of those this afternoon (a post by Russell to luv-main, apparently).
At 06:23 PM 10/25/2011, Jason White wrote:
I'm sure the Luv mailing list administrators would gladly accept help from anyone who knows mailman and who can be trusted to do reliable work.
I'm not in the former category, however, having never administered a list.
Join the club, I tried getting started with Mailman onc and hit a major roadblock. Think it was because I was using a distro provided version, so the documentation I had wasn't quite on the same page. Maybe I should have just grabbed the source and started from scratch. :D
I agree that removing those [luv-main] etc., annotations from the subject line would be a move in the right direction. They're annoying.
They don't bother me as much, but things are tidier without them. For me, it's a case of I have more important things to worry about, but if the admins ditched them, I would be far from disappointed.
I dislike Web fora so much that I won't use them unless there is a truly compelling reason to do so. The problem is that a Web forum forces you to use its user interface rather than one chosen by you
Join the club, I find their user interfaces to be slow and clumsy. Unfortunately, very few forum packages offer mailing list and/or NNTP integration. FUDForum is probably the best example of one that does, and I've played with that with some success. Used it with a Yahoo group with a lot of success (until Yahoo's stupid bounce management killed the link). That's where I was starting to play with mailman. :) Some forum package communities are actively hostile towards mailing lists for what I consider to be spurious reasons. For example, the SMF (Simple Machines Forum) community refust to add mailing list integration on the grounds it will increase spam into forums. WTF??? That should be a decision for the forum administrator to make, not the developers. :/ Unfortunately, a couple of forums I use a lot run SMF. :/
I'll gladly take mail, NNTP news, XMPP, IRC, StatusNet or anything else that has a protocol behind it and a good range of client software.
Amen! 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Six or seven years ago I did a great deal of research on music,sound, systems, speakers, computors and compressed music formats. this was over a period of 4 months. A __GREAT__ deal of comparison testing was done. all this was in order to find out the best way and limitations of comressed music on computors in order to do the best in digitising my record collection. This was very enightening and showed a lot of people did not understand what was happening. I would like to respond to some of the points brought up by Craig and others but I feel I definitely now I am no longer allowed to do this. If/when this whole mess is cleared up........................ sigh :-(. Sadly Lindsay
Hello Lindsay, Please reply as you see fit. I don't believe there is any mess. List member's are entitled to their opinions. Members are not list police ... there are moderators who do that. Your subject is applicable to linux systems such as mine. Go for it and be assured there are lurkers who are interested. Please respond to Craig's points if you wish to. Ben On 10/26/2011 09:30 AM, Lindsay Sprinter wrote:
Six or seven years ago I did a great deal of research on music,sound, systems, speakers, computors and compressed music formats. this was over a period of 4 months. A __GREAT__ deal of comparison testing was done. all this was in order to find out the best way and limitations of comressed music on computors in order to do the best in digitising my record collection. This was very enightening and showed a lot of people did not understand what was happening.
I would like to respond to some of the points brought up by Craig and others but I feel I definitely now I am no longer allowed to do this. If/when this whole mess is cleared up........................ sigh :-(.
Sadly Lindsay _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
Hello Lindsay, On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 08:30 +1000, Lindsay Sprinter wrote:
Six or seven years ago I did a great deal of research on music, sound, systems, speakers, computers and compressed music formats. this was over a period of 4 months. A __GREAT__ deal of comparison testing was done. all this was in order to find out the best way and limitations of compressed music on computers in order to do the best in digitising my record collection. This was very enlightening and showed a lot of people did not understand what was happening.
That does sound very interesting
I would like to respond to some of the points brought up by Craig and others but I feel I definitely now I am no longer allowed to do this. If/when this whole mess is cleared up........................ sigh :-(.
There is a valid reason to do, on LUV-MAIN, that of the codecs, and licencing issues, that is Linux related. There will also be more general material, for context. As to absolute permission, it is a matter of judgement, and making relevant, or so I understand from what the committee have said. Just make the material relevant. As to your dial up access, I too am not on any broadband, I use an analog modem. What is ridiculous is that I am less than 1.5 km from the base of the mobile phone tower where my phone line terminates and connects via fiber. I curse the "concentrator" technology that means that ADSL is not available. Where I do have a minor advantage, is that the speeds are more reasonable. I am also giving serious thought to WAN technologies, both the interconnection/communication and the nodes, for some rural areas where a local community cooperative telco might provide a serious improvement to access. Digium and their efforts are in the picture, they make extensive use of Linux.
Sadly Lindsay
Regards, Mark Trickett
Hello Lindsay, On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 08:30 +1000, Lindsay Sprinter wrote:
Six or seven years ago I did a great deal of research on music, sound, systems, speakers, computers and compressed music formats. this was over a period of 4 months. A __GREAT__ deal of comparison testing was done. all this was in order to find out the best way and limitations of compressed music on computers in order to do the best in digitising my record collection. This was very enlightening and showed a lot of people did not understand what was happening.
That does sound very interesting
I would like to respond to some of the points brought up by Craig and others but I feel I definitely now I am no longer allowed to do this. If/when this whole mess is cleared up........................ sigh :-(.
There is a valid reason to do, on LUV-MAIN, that of the codecs, and licencing issues, that is Linux related. There will also be more general material, for context. As to absolute permission, it is a matter of judgement, and making relevant, or so I understand from what the committee have said. Just make the material relevant. As to your dial up access, I too am not on any broadband, I use an analog modem. What is ridiculous is that I am less than 1.5 km from the base of the mobile phone tower where my phone line terminates and connects via fiber. I curse the "concentrator" technology that means that ADSL is not available. Where I do have a minor advantage, is that the speeds are more reasonable. I am also giving serious thought to WAN technologies, both the interconnection/communication and the nodes, for some rural areas where a local community cooperative telco might provide a serious improvement to access. Digium and their efforts are in the picture, they make extensive use of Linux.
Sadly Lindsay
Regards, Mark Trickett
On 25.10.11 17:05, Tim Connors wrote:
Could we do something about finding the setting in the new mailing list software to remove the nasty "[luv-main] [luv-talk] [luv-main]" subject line cruft that will no doubt appear once this ends up back on the luv-main list?
Being elbowed from list to list has inconveniences, it seems. We don't have to inconvenience the list administrators, though. The following performs the header rewriting in procmail, so the [luv-main] [luv-talk] guff is removed when we receive them: :0 * ^TO_luv-main@.*luv.asn.au { # We need the subject line _content_, # minus any [list-name]: SUBJECT=`formail -czX "Subject:" | sed -re "s/Subject:// ; s/ \[luv-[a-z]*\]//g"` # Header rewrite: :0fhw | formail -i "Subject: $SUBJECT" # Delivery to relevant mailbox: :0: luv-main } -------------------------- The "SUBJECT" assignment is one line. The "-i" in the second formail invocation leaves a copy of the original subject line in the header, renamed to "Old-Subject:". The "TO_" macro in the second line results in courtesy copies going to the list mailbox, not the default mailbox. (My procmail setup then dumps the list copy, which arrives later, in "duplicates".) Now my subject lines are uncluttered. :-)
I fear that it's been a month now, and might almost become accepted behaviour to keep munging the subject line like that. And then it's only a short path down the track to LUV-main become a web-forum <shudder>.
+1 on the <shudder>. (And +40 on all the objections voiced over fora.) Erik -- The web is a new-fangled gimmick that will never catch on. - Shaun Jackman on avr-gcc-list on Thu, 7 Dec 2006
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> wrote:
Being elbowed from list to list has inconveniences, it seems. We don't have to inconvenience the list administrators, though. The following performs the header rewriting in procmail, so the [luv-main] [luv-talk] guff is removed when we receive them:
That doesn't make DKIM checks work as DKIM is almost always done well before procmail gets the message. Also if you reply to mail after munging the headers in that manner then the LUV server will munge them again which means that if your MTA uses DKIM then the signature will be broken. Your suggestion should not be implemented by anyone who uses fetchmail with gmail, yahoo, or any of the other major providers who use DKIM. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 28.10.11 21:13, Russell Coker wrote:
Also if you reply to mail after munging the headers in that manner then the LUV server will munge them again which means that if your MTA uses DKIM then the signature will be broken.
Yes, DKIM is broken by the list server inserting the luv-* guff. (It does that if a thread's OP is not pre-munged by the sender, AIUI?) And the corresponding header unmunging would cause DKIM to barf on the messages on which the list server didn't cause trouble. (If DKIM is used by the recipient.) If the list server were to cease munging subject lines, then there would no longer be any reason for unmunging them on receipt, and there would be no impediment to DKIM working again, I expect. Yes, any recipient who is using DKIM would probably find the header clean-up unattractive, since it would cause DKIM to barf on any signed messages on which the list server didn't cause trouble. Erik -- I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. - Poul Anderson
Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> wrote:
Yes, any recipient who is using DKIM would probably find the header clean-up unattractive, since it would cause DKIM to barf on any signed messages on which the list server didn't cause trouble.
The list server needs to be configured not to modify any headers signed by DKIM. This includes not changing the Subject header. In my configuration, and this is probably typical, DKIM verification is done during the SMTP transaction, before the message is delivered to Procmail. Messages which fail the check are bounced at that point.
On 29.10.11 09:25, Jason White wrote:
The list server needs to be configured not to modify any headers signed by DKIM. This includes not changing the Subject header.
In my configuration, and this is probably typical, DKIM verification is done during the SMTP transaction, before the message is delivered to Procmail. Messages which fail the check are bounced at that point.
Ah, I have then misunderstood Russell's objection to us cleaning up the clutter munged into the subject line by the list server. It seems to be that: - In itself, the Procmail clean-up does nothing to upset DKIM. (If it's done after DKIM verification, on receipt, it cannot.) - If we're using DKIM, and replying to the list (with a cleaned subject), then the list server's existing DKIM problem would be triggered, just as with an OP. (i.e. just another reason for fixing mailman.) - The concern expressed w.r.t. gmail, yahoo, etc., presumably arises from them also munging subject lines, and therefore creating problems with signed messages, in the same way as luv-main. I'm now wondering why Russell thinks the incompatibility between all problem mailserver configurations and DKIM shouldn't be fixed, instead of shooing away a convenient work-around for the annoying clutter the mailman misconfiguration introduces. Erik -- Don't believe everything you hear, or anything you say.
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011, Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> wrote:
- The concern expressed w.r.t. gmail, yahoo, etc., presumably arises from them also munging subject lines, and therefore creating problems with signed messages, in the same way as luv-main.
Gmail and Yahoo are two mail servers that DKIM sign all outbound mail. When you munge headers you break DKIM signatures from all mail from those servers which is a significant portion of all email (note that gmail can host other domains). It's theoretically possible for someone who's mail is DKIM signed to put in the [luv-main] in the subject line themself, this could theoretically be done automatically (all you have to do is to write a milter - one of the more painful pieces of coding you're likely to do) or be done manually (or possibly through hacking your MUA configuration). But in practice it's unreasonable to expect so many people to do that - including every newbie who has a gmail account.
I'm now wondering why Russell thinks the incompatibility between all problem mailserver configurations and DKIM shouldn't be fixed, instead of shooing away a convenient work-around for the annoying clutter the mailman misconfiguration introduces.
The problem mailservers need to be fixed. Committee people, what's the delay here? Why can't you get an agreement by email and then tell Craig to implement it? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
participants (11)
-
Ben Nisenbaum -
Craig Sanders -
Erik Christiansen -
Jason White -
Lindsay Sprinter -
Mark Trickett -
Mark Trickett -
Rick Moen -
Russell Coker -
Tim Connors -
Tony Langdon