FAQ
Hello,
I am running mailman 2.1.5 with sendmail. One of my users sent in an
attachment with a message to the list. When he signs with his PGP key, only
the PGP signature remains in the message. I have yet to locate the rest of
the message. It is necessary to disable the signature to allow his posts to
go through properly. Is there a method to allow for secure signatures on
messages? I have searched quite a bit and have yet to find relevant
information. Any information/assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Jeff D

Search Discussions

  • Todd Zullinger at May 17, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    Jeff DeReus wrote:
    I am running mailman 2.1.5 with sendmail. One of my users sent in
    an attachment with a message to the list. When he signs with his
    PGP key, only the PGP signature remains in the message. I have yet
    to locate the rest of the message. It is necessary to disable the
    signature to allow his posts to go through properly. Is there a
    method to allow for secure signatures on messages? I have searched
    quite a bit and have yet to find relevant information. Any
    information/assistance would be greatly appreciated.
    There are a number of variables here. The two main ways that are used
    to sign messages with PGP are PGP/MIME and inline (or traditional) PGP
    (this message is signed using inline PGP).

    Which method is the poster using? What settings do you have for
    pass_mime_types (on the Content filtering admin page)?

    I send signed messages in both formats to various mailman lists
    without the text disappearing. I know that some mailman setups will
    break the signature, but I haven't had any eat the message body so
    far.

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    ======================================================================
    You will rue this day! Well, go on! Start ruing!
    -- Stewie Griffin
  • Jeff DeReus at May 17, 2006 at 5:37 pm
    The poster uses an OpenPGP/MIME signature.

    the pass_mime_types ==

    multipart/mixed
    multipart/alternative
    text/plain

    Thank you,
    Jeff D

    On 5/17/06, Todd Zullinger wrote:

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Jeff DeReus wrote:
    I am running mailman 2.1.5 with sendmail. One of my users sent in
    an attachment with a message to the list. When he signs with his
    PGP key, only the PGP signature remains in the message. I have yet
    to locate the rest of the message. It is necessary to disable the
    signature to allow his posts to go through properly. Is there a
    method to allow for secure signatures on messages? I have searched
    quite a bit and have yet to find relevant information. Any
    information/assistance would be greatly appreciated.
    There are a number of variables here. The two main ways that are used
    to sign messages with PGP are PGP/MIME and inline (or traditional) PGP
    (this message is signed using inline PGP).

    Which method is the poster using? What settings do you have for
    pass_mime_types (on the Content filtering admin page)?

    I send signed messages in both formats to various mailman lists
    without the text disappearing. I know that some mailman setups will
    break the signature, but I haven't had any eat the message body so
    far.

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    ======================================================================
    You will rue this day! Well, go on! Start ruing!
    -- Stewie Griffin

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: When crypto is outlawed bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

    iG0EARECAC0FAkRrXa8mGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucG9ib3guY29tL350bXovcGdwL3Rt
    ei5hc2MACgkQuv+09NZUB1pHigCffV5w8AatoVZYj3EewOzwG12Fz5EAoNsbJsy1
    INl4aHzfFLmHxIG5hmWx
    =YOTq
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Mailman-Users mailing list
    Mailman-Users at python.org
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
    Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
    Searchable Archives:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
    Unsubscribe:
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/jdereus%40gmail.com

    Security Policy:
    http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
  • Todd Zullinger at May 17, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    Jeff DeReus wrote:
    The poster uses an OpenPGP/MIME signature. Okay.
    the pass_mime_types ==

    multipart/mixed
    multipart/alternative
    text/plain
    I should have asked whether the filter_content setting was yes or no
    too. If it's no, then the pass_mime_types setting won't come into
    play (I believe, hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

    Anyway, I just created a test list on a system running mailman 2.1.5
    and left all settings at the defaults. Then I posted several messages
    signed with and without attachments using OpenPGP/MIME. I had no
    trouble receiving the messages and verifying the pgp signatures.

    Does the message show up in the list archives? What happens if you
    open the list mbox in mutt?

    In my test list the message body and attachment got scrubbed from the
    archives, but came through to the list intact. I'd have to search a
    bit to see what settings need to be changed to get the archiver to
    work right with these messages, but I believe it can be done. (Mark
    probably knows exactly how, perhaps he'll jump in with some wisdom.)

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    ======================================================================
    I don't mind arguing with myself. It's when I lose that it bothers me.
    -- Richard Powers
  • Jeff DeReus at May 17, 2006 at 7:16 pm
    Unfortunately filter_content was not set to yes. I am assuming that would
    be fairly "handy". Although everything goes through properly with
    filter_content disabled and when unsigned. As to the message in the
    archives, the only piece that successfully arrived was

    Skipped content of type multipart/mixed-------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: PGP.sig
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 186 bytes
    Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
    Url : http://www.blah.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20060510/529c55f0/PGP.bin
    <http://www.cactuscode.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20060510/529c55f0/PGP.bin>


    However, viewing the list mbox file the full message with the attachment
    ?flattened? is there.

    Thank you,
    Jeff D
    On 5/17/06, Todd Zullinger wrote:

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Jeff DeReus wrote:
    The poster uses an OpenPGP/MIME signature. Okay.
    the pass_mime_types ==

    multipart/mixed
    multipart/alternative
    text/plain
    I should have asked whether the filter_content setting was yes or no
    too. If it's no, then the pass_mime_types setting won't come into
    play (I believe, hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

    Anyway, I just created a test list on a system running mailman 2.1.5
    and left all settings at the defaults. Then I posted several messages
    signed with and without attachments using OpenPGP/MIME. I had no
    trouble receiving the messages and verifying the pgp signatures.

    Does the message show up in the list archives? What happens if you
    open the list mbox in mutt?

    In my test list the message body and attachment got scrubbed from the
    archives, but came through to the list intact. I'd have to search a
    bit to see what settings need to be changed to get the archiver to
    work right with these messages, but I believe it can be done. (Mark
    probably knows exactly how, perhaps he'll jump in with some wisdom.)

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    ======================================================================
    I don't mind arguing with myself. It's when I lose that it bothers me.
    -- Richard Powers

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: When crypto is outlawed bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

    iG0EARECAC0FAkRrb/8mGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucG9ib3guY29tL350bXovcGdwL3Rt
    ei5hc2MACgkQuv+09NZUB1pQnwCgpbDtc+ANQtFgtlPJNG6qIYtyGW4AoLn8lXnv
    t7w1LQqoa8r7cCvY8Ggy
    =L0Sj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Mailman-Users mailing list
    Mailman-Users at python.org
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
    Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
    Searchable Archives:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
    Unsubscribe:
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/jdereus%40gmail.com

    Security Policy:
    http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&amp;file=faq01.027.htp
  • Todd Zullinger at May 17, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    Jeff DeReus wrote:
    Unfortunately filter_content was not set to yes. I am assuming that
    would be fairly "handy".
    I'm not sure whether that will any effect on the archiving or not.
    It's been a long time since I tested that.
    Although everything goes through properly with filter_content
    disabled and when unsigned.
    To be clear, does the message arrive properly to list members or is
    the attachment and body stripped there as well as in the archives? In
    my testing only the archived copy was stripped.
    As to the message in the archives, the only piece that successfully
    arrived was

    Skipped content of type multipart/mixed-------------- next part
    -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig
    Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a
    digitally signed message part Url :
    http://www.blah.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20060510/529c55f0/PGP.bin
    <http://www.cactuscode.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20060510/529c55f0/PGP.bin>
    The archiver bug is mentioned here, but I couldn't see any resolution
    to that part of the problem (and sourceforge isn't cooperating with me
    ATM):

    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-coders/2005-March/001687.html
    However, viewing the list mbox file the full message with the
    attachment ?flattened? is there.
    Flattened? Reading the mbox of my test list with mutt the message and
    attachment were all normal and the signature verified properly.

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    ======================================================================
    A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all.
  • Jeff DeReus at May 17, 2006 at 8:59 pm

    On 5/17/06, Todd Zullinger wrote:
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Jeff DeReus wrote:
    Unfortunately filter_content was not set to yes. I am assuming that
    would be fairly "handy".
    I'm not sure whether that will any effect on the archiving or not.
    It's been a long time since I tested that.
    Although everything goes through properly with filter_content
    disabled and when unsigned.
    To be clear, does the message arrive properly to list members or is
    the attachment and body stripped there as well as in the archives? In
    my testing only the archived copy was stripped.

    The actual text and key arrived to the mailing list. At this point I cannot
    verify from anyone if the attachment made it through correctly. my
    apologies.

    I have enabled the content_filter and added mime_types to see if this will
    solve my little problem.

    application/pgp-signature
    multipart/signed

    As you might understand, losing patches is not a desirable outcome, so maybe
    in the meantime this will have some effect.

    As to the message in the archives, the only piece that successfully
    arrived was

    Skipped content of type multipart/mixed-------------- next part
    -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig
    Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a
    digitally signed message part Url :
    http://www.blah.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20060510/529c55f0/PGP.bin
    <
    http://www.cactuscode.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20060510/529c55f0/PGP.bin
    The archiver bug is mentioned here, but I couldn't see any resolution
    to that part of the problem (and sourceforge isn't cooperating with me
    ATM):

    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-coders/2005-March/001687.html
    However, viewing the list mbox file the full message with the
    attachment ?flattened? is there.
    Flattened? Reading the mbox of my test list with mutt the message and
    attachment were all normal and the signature verified properly.

    I am probably using the wrong word in the wrong place here. Everything is
    displayed properly in the mbox for the list. It is only the archive that is
    affected.

    Thank you,
    Jeff D

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    ======================================================================
    A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: When crypto is outlawed bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

    iG0EARECAC0FAkRrgjomGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucG9ib3guY29tL350bXovcGdwL3Rt
    ei5hc2MACgkQuv+09NZUB1qNiQCgyOLh8+FLr+VOhAM2smIW6VS7MyQAn2p27nQv
    /h16smlehbhCcMqyfV7/
    =JTNq
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Mailman-Users mailing list
    Mailman-Users at python.org
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
    Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
    Searchable Archives:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
    Unsubscribe:
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/jdereus%40gmail.com

    Security Policy:
    http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&amp;file=faq01.027.htp
  • Todd Zullinger at May 17, 2006 at 10:59 pm

    Jeff DeReus wrote:
    On 5/17/06, Todd Zullinger wrote:
    [...]
    To be clear, does the message arrive properly to list members or is
    the attachment and body stripped there as well as in the archives?
    In my testing only the archived copy was stripped.

    The actual text and key arrived to the mailing list. At this point
    I cannot verify from anyone if the attachment made it through
    correctly. my apologies.
    No problem. I'm betting the attachment did arrive, based on my own
    tests. I think this is a bug limited to the archiver.
    I have enabled the content_filter and added mime_types to see if
    this will solve my little problem.

    application/pgp-signature
    multipart/signed
    Let us know if it does. I'm not really familiar enough with the code
    to know if it will help. I don't think it will, but I could easily be
    mistaken.
    As you might understand, losing patches is not a desirable outcome,
    so maybe in the meantime this will have some effect.
    Nope, losing important parts of messages in the archives isn't good.
    I wouldn't like any patches I took the time to create getting eaten.
    Flattened? Reading the mbox of my test list with mutt the message
    and attachment were all normal and the signature verified properly.
    I am probably using the wrong word in the wrong place here.
    Everything is displayed properly in the mbox for the list. It is
    only the archive that is affected.
    That's good to know. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about how the
    archive scrubber code works to know how to solve the problem.
    Hopefully someone else can offer some help.

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    ======================================================================
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
    pause and reflect.
    -- Mark Twain
  • Mark Sapiro at May 17, 2006 at 11:22 pm

    Todd Zullinger wrote:
    Jeff DeReus wrote:
    I have enabled the content_filter and added mime_types to see if
    this will solve my little problem.

    application/pgp-signature
    multipart/signed
    Let us know if it does. I'm not really familiar enough with the code
    to know if it will help. I don't think it will, but I could easily be
    mistaken.

    Depends on whether Content Filtering is on or off. If off, nothing in
    pass_mime_types has any effect - everything is passed. If on, these
    are necessary or the whole message will be filtered out.

    I am probably using the wrong word in the wrong place here.
    Everything is displayed properly in the mbox for the list. It is
    only the archive that is affected.
    That's good to know. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about how the
    archive scrubber code works to know how to solve the problem.
    Hopefully someone else can offer some help.

    There are issues with the archiver with respect to certain, complex
    structures, but here are some points.

    The entire message was in the .mbox file for the list. This means the
    entire message was delivered to message subscribers and MIME format
    digest subscribers. A scrubbed message is in the archive and was
    delivered to plain digest subscribers.

    Before giving up on the archive, look at the 'source' html of the
    archive page and look at the 'source' of the scrubbed attachment(s).
    I've seen scrubbed attachments that look like X is missing when viewed
    in browser A and look like Y is missing when viewed in browser B, when
    in fact, if you look at the actual file, everything is there.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Todd Zullinger at May 17, 2006 at 11:50 pm

    Mark Sapiro wrote:
    Before giving up on the archive, look at the 'source' html of the
    archive page and look at the 'source' of the scrubbed attachment(s).
    I've seen scrubbed attachments that look like X is missing when
    viewed in browser A and look like Y is missing when viewed in
    browser B, when in fact, if you look at the actual file, everything
    is there.
    In the bug report I found, there's a link to the archived message:

    http://sablecc.org/lists/sablecc-user/2004-December/000159.html

    and that looks just like the archived messages I have from testing.

    It starts off with:

    Skipped content of type multipart/mixed

    which would mean that the message part was totally skipped in
    Handlers.Scrubber, right?

    It seems to me that some part of the scrubber or message parsing code
    may just not be recursing into the multipart/mixed part, but I don't
    really know. Mark, perhaps you know the flow better and could say
    whether that's a possibility?

    The structure of an OpenPGP/MIME signed message with an attachment is
    something like this (the parts inside the multipart/mixed part may
    vary, in my tests I used a plain text message and attached a patch
    file):

    multipart/signed
    multipart/mixed
    text/plain
    text/plain
    application/pgp-signature

    Around line 300 in Handlers.Scrubber, the comments say:

    # All parts should be scrubbed to text/plain by now.

    and then a simple test for a non text/plain ctype is made, replacing
    it with the "Skipped content" text from above. Somewhere before that,
    shouldn't the multipart/mixed message part have been handled?

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    ======================================================================
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands,
    hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.
    -- H.L. Mencken
  • Mark Sapiro at May 18, 2006 at 12:18 am

    Todd Zullinger wrote:
    In the bug report I found, there's a link to the archived message:

    http://sablecc.org/lists/sablecc-user/2004-December/000159.html

    and that looks just like the archived messages I have from testing.

    It starts off with:

    Skipped content of type multipart/mixed

    which would mean that the message part was totally skipped in
    Handlers.Scrubber, right?

    That message is issued when we walk through the message parts after
    scrubbing and find a non-multipart sub part whose type is not
    text/plain.

    It seems to me that some part of the scrubber or message parsing code
    may just not be recursing into the multipart/mixed part, but I don't
    really know. Mark, perhaps you know the flow better and could say
    whether that's a possibility?

    Something is seriously wrong, either with Scrubber or with the original
    message. I.e. it is saying there is a multipart/mixed part that
    doesn't have sub-parts.

    The structure of an OpenPGP/MIME signed message with an attachment is
    something like this (the parts inside the multipart/mixed part may
    vary, in my tests I used a plain text message and attached a patch
    file):

    multipart/signed
    multipart/mixed
    text/plain
    text/plain
    application/pgp-signature

    Around line 300 in Handlers.Scrubber, the comments say:

    # All parts should be scrubbed to text/plain by now.

    and then a simple test for a non text/plain ctype is made, replacing
    it with the "Skipped content" text from above. Somewhere before that,
    shouldn't the multipart/mixed message part have been handled?

    Yup. Something is wrong here. Maybe in Scrubber, Maybe in Python's
    email parser. I probably won't have time to look at this in detail
    until Friday, but I will. Can you send me a copy of your test message
    off list? Thanks.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Todd Zullinger at May 18, 2006 at 1:24 am

    Mark Sapiro wrote:
    Todd Zullinger wrote:
    [...]
    Around line 300 in Handlers.Scrubber, the comments say:

    # All parts should be scrubbed to text/plain by now.

    and then a simple test for a non text/plain ctype is made, replacing
    it with the "Skipped content" text from above. Somewhere before that,
    shouldn't the multipart/mixed message part have been handled?

    Yup. Something is wrong here. Maybe in Scrubber, Maybe in Python's
    email parser. I probably won't have time to look at this in detail
    until Friday, but I will. Can you send me a copy of your test message
    off list? Thanks.
    Will do. And thank you.

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    ======================================================================
    The human race divides itself politically into those who want to be
    controlled, and those who have no such desire.
    -- Robert A. Heinlein
  • Jeff DeReus at May 18, 2006 at 3:38 pm
    It seems that adding the filter_types has one effect. When the list
    subscribers get a message that has been PGP signed, the signature is no
    longer valid.

    When a patch is submitted (for developers) it is stripped from the message
    that is posted to one list and the entire message with the patch is then
    forwarded to another list (for the actual patches).

    When one particular patch was submitted, it seems that the characters are
    being converted to either unicode or ascii. i.e.

    ===========================is now
    =========== etc, etc, for several more lines.
    this is in the mbox for the patches list. also there are miscellaneous
    characters tossed in there (just for good measure I suppose :) )
    static int ShowStaticPage (const cGH *GH, httpRequest *request, void *unused);
    494c496
    (from the mbox)

    One possibility for the character munging perhaps is the email client the
    submitter uses. One person is using thunderbird and the other is using the
    default "Mail" client on Mac OS X. the mac submitter patches at least
    arrive in the mbox correctly without munging.

    Hope that helps.

    Thank you,
    Jeff D
    On 5/17/06, Todd Zullinger wrote:

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Mark Sapiro wrote:
    Todd Zullinger wrote:
    [...]
    Around line 300 in Handlers.Scrubber, the comments say:

    # All parts should be scrubbed to text/plain by now.

    and then a simple test for a non text/plain ctype is made, replacing
    it with the "Skipped content" text from above. Somewhere before that,
    shouldn't the multipart/mixed message part have been handled?

    Yup. Something is wrong here. Maybe in Scrubber, Maybe in Python's
    email parser. I probably won't have time to look at this in detail
    until Friday, but I will. Can you send me a copy of your test message
    off list? Thanks.
    Will do. And thank you.

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    =====================================================================> The human race divides itself politically into those who want to be
    controlled, and those who have no such desire.
    -- Robert A. Heinlein

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: When crypto is outlawed bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.

    iG0EARECAC0FAkRrzNsmGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucG9ib3guY29tL350bXovcGdwL3Rt
    ei5hc2MACgkQuv+09NZUB1o98gCeMYdZKBzLa0HnOr2ZIyAwCNZ1kSkAoMNNTpyw
    fSwV7UNIF7PNSmUyKU7T
    =8X0l
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Mailman-Users mailing list
    Mailman-Users at python.org
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
    Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
    Searchable Archives:
    http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
    Unsubscribe:
    http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/jdereus%40gmail.com

    Security Policy:
    http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&amp;fileúq01.027.htp
  • Mark Sapiro at May 19, 2006 at 5:29 pm

    Jeff DeReus wrote:
    It seems that adding the filter_types has one effect. When the list
    subscribers get a message that has been PGP signed, the signature is
    no longer valid.

    I assume here that content filtering is On. There is not much Mailman
    can do in these cases. I'm not sure what the specific issue is in this
    case, but generally, anything that touches the message body will break
    the signature.

    When a patch is submitted (for developers) it is stripped from the
    message that is posted to one list

    Do you mean in the archive or in the message sent to subscribers?

    and the entire message with the
    patch is then forwarded to another list (for the actual patches).

    When one particular patch was submitted, it seems that the characters
    are being converted to either unicode or ascii. i.e.

    ============================ is now ===========
    etc, etc, for several more lines. this is in the mbox for the patches
    list. also there are miscellaneous characters tossed in there (just
    for good measure I suppose :) )
    The transformation of '=' to '=' and the addition of other '=' and
    '=xx' things is the result of quoted printable encoding of the message.
    Prior to Mailman 2.1.7, there were cases where an encoded message body
    could be sent by Mailman without being indicated as such or an unencoded
    body could be indicated as being encoded. The underlying issue that
    caused this was avoided in 2.1.7 and fixed (in the email library) in 2.1.8.

    This may be what's going on here, or it may be a case of a properly
    identified, encoded message being viewed with an MUA (client) that
    doesn't recognize it or a difference in how the poster's MUA encodes the
    message affecting the Mailman result.

    Regarding the original problem of the message body and attached patch
    not being in the archive, I have done some testing with the latest
    Scrubber, and it works properly with all the test messages Todd sent me.

    I note that the annotation "Skipped content of type multipart/mixed"
    will not appear in these cases in Mailman 2.1.6 and up, but the change
    that skips issuing that message is not what fixed the problem. I need to
    test with older versions of Scrubber to actually identify what the
    problem was and what fixed it.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Mark Sapiro at May 19, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    Mark Sapiro wrote:
    Regarding the original problem of the message body and attached patch
    not being in the archive, I have done some testing with the latest
    Scrubber, and it works properly with all the test messages Todd sent me.

    I note that the annotation "Skipped content of type multipart/mixed"
    will not appear in these cases in Mailman 2.1.6 and up, but the change
    that skips issuing that message is not what fixed the problem. I need to
    test with older versions of Scrubber to actually identify what the
    problem was and what fixed it.

    I have identified the problem with 2.1.5 and earlier. Basically, it has
    nothing to do with PGP signed messages. The problem was if a message
    contained a multipart MIME sub-part which in turn contained one or
    more text/plain parts, these text plain parts would be lost. This
    would happen with PGP signed messages with text/plain attachments
    because the unsigned message is multipart/mixed with text/plain
    sub-parts and when it is signed the entire message is wrapped in a
    multipart/signed outer part and an application/pgp-signature part
    added.

    This problem was fixed in Mailman 2.1.6 by the following change (note
    the line numbers are from the latest trunk, not 2.1.5 or 2.1.6)

    --- Scrubberx.py 2006-05-19 11:08:25.562500000 -0700
    +++ Scrubber.py 2006-05-19 10:59:25.609375000 -0700
    @@ -309,7 +309,10 @@
    # BAW: Martin's original patch suggested we might want to try
    # generalizing to utf-8, and that's probably a good idea
    (eventually).
    text = []
    - for part in msg.get_payload():
    + for part in msg.walk():
    + # TK: bug-id 1099138 and multipart
    + if not part or part.is_multipart():
    + continue
    # All parts should be scrubbed to text/plain by now.
    partctype = part.get_content_type()
    if partctype <> 'text/plain':


    --
    Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Todd Zullinger at May 21, 2006 at 10:56 pm

    Mark Sapiro wrote:
    I have identified the problem with 2.1.5 and earlier. Basically, it
    has nothing to do with PGP signed messages. The problem was if a
    message contained a multipart MIME sub-part which in turn contained
    one or more text/plain parts, these text plain parts would be lost.
    This would happen with PGP signed messages with text/plain
    attachments because the unsigned message is multipart/mixed with
    text/plain sub-parts and when it is signed the entire message is
    wrapped in a multipart/signed outer part and an
    application/pgp-signature part added.
    Thanks for the detective work Mark. I submitted this to the RH/Fedora
    bugzilla so that it may be fixed there with an update before it bites
    too many others.

    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id2625

    - --
    Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
    =====================================================================The reward of energy, enterprise and thrift is taxes.
    -- William Feather

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupmailman-users @
categoriespython
postedMay 17, '06 at 5:02p
activeMay 21, '06 at 10:56p
posts16
users3
websitelist.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase