FAQ
Hello,



I'm in the process of setting up Mailman for a discussion group of about 100
members. From past experience, I know some people will prefer to have digest
but they'll also probably just hit the "reply" button without editing the
subject or deleting anything automatically included. I think this will mean
their replies will contain the entire digest: difficult to work out which
message they're replying to and using archive space on the server.



1. How do I stop this happening?



At the moment, the only thing I can think of is to filter out messages
containing "digest" in the subject line and hold those for moderation.



2. Can I also filter messages with "digest" in the body? I can't see
where to do this in the administrative interface.



3. When I'm reviewing a message held for moderation, can I edit it to
remove unwanted bits of the digest? I need to do this without altering the
sender's details so members know the message is from them and not from me?
When I click on the message in the moderation queue, I can see a message
excerpt but can't see how to edit it.



4. If messages have got through with lots of unwanted text, is it
possible for me to edit them in the archive? Otherwise my archive may be
unnecessarily large and I can't afford endless server space.



Thanks for your help.

Clare

Search Discussions

  • Mark Sapiro at Dec 29, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Clare Redstone wrote:
    I'm in the process of setting up Mailman for a discussion group of about 100
    members. From past experience, I know some people will prefer to have digest
    but they'll also probably just hit the "reply" button without editing the
    subject or deleting anything automatically included. I think this will mean
    their replies will contain the entire digest: difficult to work out which
    message they're replying to and using archive space on the server.



    1. How do I stop this happening?



    At the moment, the only thing I can think of is to filter out messages
    containing "digest" in the subject line and hold those for moderation.

    You can do that with Privacy options ... -> Spam filters ->
    header_filter_rules, or you can just moderate all members or all
    digest members and reject their posts until they learn. You can also
    set General Options -> max_message_size small enough to catch these.
    In particular, if digests are triggered on size only, you should be
    able to find a sweet spot that will catch all quoted digests but not
    most 'good' posts.

    2. Can I also filter messages with "digest" in the body? I can't see
    where to do this in the administrative interface.

    No. Filtering on anything in the message body requires a custom
    handler. See the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/l4A9>.

    3. When I'm reviewing a message held for moderation, can I edit it to
    remove unwanted bits of the digest? I need to do this without altering the
    sender's details so members know the message is from them and not from me?
    When I click on the message in the moderation queue, I can see a message
    excerpt but can't see how to edit it.

    Without source modifications, you can't edit a held message from the
    admindb interface. What you can do depends on your MUA. I do the
    following occasionally (when a quoted digest is held for size). I have
    admin_immed_notify set to yes, so I receive a notice containing the
    post as part 2 of 3 message parts. First, I discard the original held
    message. Then, using Mutt, I open the notice and then the
    message/rfc822 part containing the post, edit it and then 'bounce' it
    to the list. 'Bounce' is Mutt's term for resending the original
    message to additional recipients. This is not forwarding; it is
    resending with the original headers. Not all MUAs can do this.

    Also see the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/24A9>.

    OTOH, you'll get more mileage in the long run by rejecting the post and
    requiring the user to generate a proper reply.

    4. If messages have got through with lots of unwanted text, is it
    possible for me to edit them in the archive? Otherwise my archive may be
    unnecessarily large and I can't afford endless server space.

    This requires shell access to the server. See the FAQ at
    <http://wiki.list.org/x/OAB0>. (Note: These days, file space is a lot
    cheaper than your time to do this, even if you do it as a hobby.)


    Also note that if the members subscribe to the MIME format digest (make
    it the default), many MUAs allow opening an individual message from
    the digest and replying to it alone. It might be easier to train your
    users if they have this ability.

    Aside: I would think this behavior would be self correcting as it
    renders digests (particularly plain format digests) virtually
    unreadable, but the ability of users to blindly act in opposition to
    their own interests continues to amaze me. I guess that when replying
    to the current digest, the readability of the next digest is what
    economists call an externality.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Tanstaafl at Dec 29, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    On 2009-12-29, Mark Sapiro (mark at msapiro.net) wrote:
    Also note that if the members subscribe to the MIME format digest (make
    it the default), many MUAs allow opening an individual message from
    the digest and replying to it alone. It might be easier to train your
    users if they have this ability.
    I don't recall where, but I have seen some digest lists that actually
    have Reply/Forward 'links' for each message in the digest in the
    included 'headers' of each individual message in the digest. Using these
    links creates a reply identical to one that would be generated if the
    message had been received individually.

    Any chance of Mailman ever being able to do that? Or is that what you
    are talking about with the MIME format digest?
  • Mark Sapiro at Dec 29, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    Tanstaafl wrote:
    I don't recall where, but I have seen some digest lists that actually
    have Reply/Forward 'links' for each message in the digest in the
    included 'headers' of each individual message in the digest. Using these
    links creates a reply identical to one that would be generated if the
    message had been received individually.

    This sounds like something with a web based 'archive' that allows
    replying/forwarding via the web.

    Any chance of Mailman ever being able to do that? Or is that what you
    are talking about with the MIME format digest?

    The MIME format digest does allow something like this if your MUA
    supports it, but I don't think it's what you're talking about.

    MM3 will have more flexibility to enable doing things like this. You
    may eventually see it in MM 3.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Tanstaafl at Dec 29, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    On 2009-12-29 1:43 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
    Tanstaafl wrote:
    I don't recall where, but I have seen some digest lists that actually
    have Reply/Forward 'links' for each message in the digest in the
    included 'headers' of each individual message in the digest. Using these
    links creates a reply identical to one that would be generated if the
    message had been received individually.
    This sounds like something with a web based 'archive' that allows
    replying/forwarding via the web.
    No, it was definitely in an HTML formatted digest list...

    But now that I think about it, I may be mistaken about the resulting
    reply being the same... ok, I just went and looked - it was Yahoo Group
    Digest messages...

    I really like the way these digests work. You can click on a message in
    the summary at the top and it scrolls down to that message.

    Then it has 'Reply to sender' and 'Reply to Group' links, as well as a
    'Back to top' link at the bottom of each message which makes it easy to
    get back to the summary if you are cherry picking which messages you
    want to read - *very* useful for busy lists that have a lot of messages.

    It does reply with the correct Subject when you use those links, but it
    does *not* generate In-Reply-To headers, which is the only shortcoming I
    can see.
    Any chance of Mailman ever being able to do that? Or is that what you
    are talking about with the MIME format digest?
    The MIME format digest does allow something like this if your MUA
    supports it, but I don't think it's what you're talking about.

    MM3 will have more flexibility to enable doing things like this. You
    may eventually see it in MM 3.
    As one who does not hate HTML messages like some people do - especially
    for things like this where the HTML code can provide extremely useful
    behavior like this - I really do hope that Mailman can (will) be
    extended with this kind of functionality some day.

    --

    Best regards,

    Charles
  • Clare Redstone at Dec 29, 2009 at 9:19 pm
    it was Yahoo Group Digest messages...
    I really like the way these digests work. You can click on a message in the
    summary at the top and it scrolls down to that message.<<

    Yes, that was the first thing I noticed, trying out the Mailman digest -
    that it doesn't do this, so takes a bit longer viewing messages in a digest.
    Then it has 'Reply to sender' and 'Reply to Group' links, as well as a
    'Back to top' link at the bottom of each message which makes it easy to get
    back to the summary if you are cherry picking which messages you want to
    read - *very* useful for busy lists that have a lot of messages.<<

    I'd forgotten about the "reply to" links the Yahoo digests have as well.

    The Mailman MIME digest works pretty well for me in Outlook 2007. One
    attachment has the list of messages, then each message is a separate
    attachment so can be viewed and replied to individually. Keeping correct
    subject. It doesn't work in Yahoo Mail though :(

    I'd be very happy if digests in the next MM can be navigated and replied to
    individually with ease.

    In the mean time, I'll follow Mark's suggestions. (Those I can work out how
    to do!)

    Clare
  • Clare Redstone at Dec 29, 2009 at 10:46 pm
    Thanks for this very helpful reply, Mark.

    I'm going to follow your advice and mainly aim at training members. I do
    want to be flexible about this though: some infrequent posters have some
    very good things to say that will help us all. But they're also probably
    more likely to be a bit computer-fearful and want digests because busy
    inboxes confound them but not be aware of editing subject and body. I really
    don't want to be so strict that I frighten them off posting.

    So:

    Step 1a, filtering "digest" from headers will pick up most and I'll send
    those back to members to clean up for themselves. (But sometimes do what I
    can myself-see below.)

    Step 1b, I'll set default as MIME which will help in some cases, depending
    on MUA.

    Step 2, set repeat offenders to moderate, or if it's a widespread problem,
    every now and then check through the subscriber list and set all digest
    people to moderate.

    I might exceptionally see if I can edit and resend messages when I think
    it's particularly worth it and the sender likely to be flummoxed by being
    asked to clean and resend. I'm having trouble following the instructions
    though.

    I use Outlook 2007 on Windows XP so don't have Mutt.
    What you can do depends on your MUA. I do the
    following occasionally (when a quoted digest is held for size). I have
    admin_immed_notify set to yes, so I receive a notice containing the
    post as part 2 of 3 message parts. First, I discard the original held
    message. Then, using Mutt, I open the notice and then the
    message/rfc822 part containing the post, edit it...<<

    In Outlook, I get an email telling me there's a message waiting for
    authorisation, with 2 attachments: one called by the post subject and the
    other called "confirm 2ff72..." long string of numbers/letters.

    Test 1. "Subject" is the actual rogue post. I can use reply or forward, edit
    the message and address it to the list. I changed options to send in plain
    text, wrote approved: password at the top of the body and, just below that,
    changed the line "To: testlist at ..." to "Resent-To: testlist@ ..."

    The message made it through OK, but appears to be from me instead of from
    the original sender, and has the headers written at the top of the body of
    the message in the same way any replied to or forwarded email would have
    (albeit changed to Resent-To.)

    So I've got it working in part and this will do if there isn't a
    straightforward solution. The "approved" bit worked and I could edit the
    message, but how do I make a "Resent-To" instead of a "Forward?"

    Which is what I think you mean by:
    and then 'bounce' it
    to the list. 'Bounce' is Mutt's term for resending the original
    message to additional recipients. This is not forwarding; it is
    resending with the original headers. Not all MUAs can do this.<<

    Is it possible in Outlook?

    Another odd thing is that although it's been approved (via email) and
    received by list members, the original post is still sitting in the admin
    queue on the web interface. So I'll need to remember to delete it manually.

    One of the wiki pages you linked to, about editing messages before approving
    them (thank you, very helpful) says,
    If this feature is not available in your MUA, you can still post the
    edited message directly if you are on a
    machine with an MTA, e.g., sendmail, etc., by saving the edited message in a
    file and giving a command
    similar to the following:
    /path/to/sendmail list at example.com < edited_message_file<<

    I haven't a clue what any of that means so guess it's beyond me.

    Thanks for the other links too. I'll explore them but after a quick read, I
    think it's likely to be beyond me. Good advice too about server space being
    so cheap compared with the amount of time I could spend tidying up digests
    and archives.

    Thank you again for such a helpful reply. Any solutions getting Resent-To
    (Bounce?) to work through Outlook?

    Clare

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mark Sapiro [mailto:mark at msapiro.net]
    Sent: 29 December 2009 15:06
    To: Clare Redstone; mailman-users at python.org
    Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Replying to digests

    Clare Redstone wrote:
    I'm in the process of setting up Mailman for a discussion group of about 100
    members. From past experience, I know some people will prefer to have digest
    but they'll also probably just hit the "reply" button without editing the
    subject or deleting anything automatically included. I think this will mean
    their replies will contain the entire digest: difficult to work out which
    message they're replying to and using archive space on the server.



    1. How do I stop this happening?



    At the moment, the only thing I can think of is to filter out messages
    containing "digest" in the subject line and hold those for moderation.

    You can do that with Privacy options ... -> Spam filters ->
    header_filter_rules, or you can just moderate all members or all
    digest members and reject their posts until they learn. You can also
    set General Options -> max_message_size small enough to catch these.
    In particular, if digests are triggered on size only, you should be
    able to find a sweet spot that will catch all quoted digests but not
    most 'good' posts.

    2. Can I also filter messages with "digest" in the body? I can't see
    where to do this in the administrative interface.

    No. Filtering on anything in the message body requires a custom
    handler. See the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/l4A9>.

    3. When I'm reviewing a message held for moderation, can I edit it to
    remove unwanted bits of the digest? I need to do this without altering the
    sender's details so members know the message is from them and not from me?
    When I click on the message in the moderation queue, I can see a message
    excerpt but can't see how to edit it.

    Without source modifications, you can't edit a held message from the
    admindb interface. What you can do depends on your MUA. I do the
    following occasionally (when a quoted digest is held for size). I have
    admin_immed_notify set to yes, so I receive a notice containing the
    post as part 2 of 3 message parts. First, I discard the original held
    message. Then, using Mutt, I open the notice and then the
    message/rfc822 part containing the post, edit it and then 'bounce' it
    to the list. 'Bounce' is Mutt's term for resending the original
    message to additional recipients. This is not forwarding; it is
    resending with the original headers. Not all MUAs can do this.

    Also see the FAQ at <http://wiki.list.org/x/24A9>.

    OTOH, you'll get more mileage in the long run by rejecting the post and
    requiring the user to generate a proper reply.

    4. If messages have got through with lots of unwanted text, is it
    possible for me to edit them in the archive? Otherwise my archive may be
    unnecessarily large and I can't afford endless server space.

    This requires shell access to the server. See the FAQ at
    <http://wiki.list.org/x/OAB0>. (Note: These days, file space is a lot
    cheaper than your time to do this, even if you do it as a hobby.)


    Also note that if the members subscribe to the MIME format digest (make
    it the default), many MUAs allow opening an individual message from
    the digest and replying to it alone. It might be easier to train your
    users if they have this ability.

    Aside: I would think this behavior would be self correcting as it
    renders digests (particularly plain format digests) virtually
    unreadable, but the ability of users to blindly act in opposition to
    their own interests continues to amaze me. I guess that when replying
    to the current digest, the readability of the next digest is what
    economists call an externality.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Mark Sapiro at Dec 29, 2009 at 11:53 pm

    Clare Redstone wrote:
    I might exceptionally see if I can edit and resend messages when I think
    it's particularly worth it and the sender likely to be flummoxed by being
    asked to clean and resend. I'm having trouble following the instructions
    though.

    I use Outlook 2007 on Windows XP so don't have Mutt.
    What you can do depends on your MUA. I do the
    following occasionally (when a quoted digest is held for size). I have
    admin_immed_notify set to yes, so I receive a notice containing the
    post as part 2 of 3 message parts. First, I discard the original held
    message. Then, using Mutt, I open the notice and then the
    message/rfc822 part containing the post, edit it...<<

    In Outlook, I get an email telling me there's a message waiting for
    authorisation, with 2 attachments: one called by the post subject and the
    other called "confirm 2ff72..." long string of numbers/letters.

    Yes, that's correct. The one with the 'confirm ...' subject can be used
    to approve or discard the original. If you open that message and reply
    to it, the original post will be discarded. If you insert "Approved:
    <password>" as the first line of that reply, the original UNEDITED
    post will ba accepted for the list.

    Test 1. "Subject" is the actual rogue post. I can use reply or forward, edit
    the message and address it to the list. I changed options to send in plain
    text, wrote approved: password at the top of the body and, just below that,
    changed the line "To: testlist at ..." to "Resent-To: testlist@ ..."

    The Approved: <password> here may or may not be needed. It is only to
    ensure that the resent message doesn't get held a second time. If you
    edit out the things that caused it to be held, you don't need the
    Approved: <password>.

    The message made it through OK, but appears to be from me instead of from
    the original sender, and has the headers written at the top of the body of
    the message in the same way any replied to or forwarded email would have
    (albeit changed to Resent-To.)

    Yes. That is because you are replying or forwarding. The headers you
    are editing are copies of the original message headers in the body of
    your reply/forward. You are effectively creating a new message From:
    you to the list, and this is not what you want to do.

    So I've got it working in part and this will do if there isn't a
    straightforward solution. The "approved" bit worked and I could edit the
    message, but how do I make a "Resent-To" instead of a "Forward?"

    The Approved: bit may or may not have been required as I note above.

    Which is what I think you mean by:
    and then 'bounce' it
    to the list. 'Bounce' is Mutt's term for resending the original
    message to additional recipients. This is not forwarding; it is
    resending with the original headers. Not all MUAs can do this.<<

    Is it possible in Outlook?

    I don't know. What happens if you drag the attachment containing the
    original message to your "Drafts" folder? Do you have such a thing? If
    so, you might be able to do that, and then edit the "draft" and send
    it. I don't know if that would work, but it is worth a try.

    Another odd thing is that although it's been approved (via email) and
    received by list members, the original post is still sitting in the admin
    queue on the web interface. So I'll need to remember to delete it manually.

    Right. The original post will always have to be manually deleted. Even
    if you get the editing down so the resend is From: the original sender
    with the original Message-ID: and In-Reply-To: and References: headers
    (for threading in the archives, although if it's a reply to a digest,
    it won't be threaded anyway), it's still a separate post as far as
    Mailman is concerned, and the original has to be manually discarded.

    One of the wiki pages you linked to, about editing messages before approving
    them (thank you, very helpful) says,
    If this feature is not available in your MUA, you can still post the
    edited message directly if you are on a
    machine with an MTA, e.g., sendmail, etc., by saving the edited message in a
    file and giving a command
    similar to the following:
    /path/to/sendmail list at example.com < edited_message_file<<

    I haven't a clue what any of that means so guess it's beyond me.

    That is not directly applicable to Windows XP without installing other
    software. It would be possible to do this with a Windows MUA like
    popcorn <http://www.ultrafunk.com/popcorn/>.

    If you configured popcorn to be able to send mail, you could save the
    original message part from outlook and then open it as a draft with
    popcorn and then edit and send it. That is possibly the easiest thing
    if you need to install something, but try the outlook drafts idea
    first.

    Thank you again for such a helpful reply. Any solutions getting Resent-To
    (Bounce?) to work through Outlook?

    Try the drafts idea. There may actually be a way to directly resend a
    message from outlook, but I know little about it, and the drafts trick
    is all I can think of.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Tanstaafl at Dec 30, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    On 2009-12-29 6:53 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
    Clare Redstone wrote:
    Thank you again for such a helpful reply. Any solutions getting Resent-To
    (Bounce?) to work through Outlook?
    Try the drafts idea. There may actually be a way to directly resend a
    message from outlook, but I know little about it, and the drafts trick
    is all I can think of.
    To do this in Outlook (2003 at least), open the message, then:

    Tools > Actions > Resend this message

    --

    Best regards,

    Charles
  • Clare Redstone at Dec 30, 2009 at 12:37 pm
    Thanks again for your help.

    1.
    Test 1. "Subject" is the actual rogue post. I can use reply or
    forward, edit the message and address it to the list. I changed
    options to send in plain text, wrote approved: password at the top of
    the body and, just below that, changed the line "To: testlist at ..." to
    "Resent-To: testlist@ >>..."

    The Approved: <password> here may or may not be needed. It is only to
    ensure that the resent message doesn't get held a second time. If you edit
    out the things that caused it to be held, you don't need the Approved:
    <password>. <

    I just checked what was happening again. Even with "approved: password" at
    the beginning of the message I forwarded, MM filtered on the taboo word
    ("digest") in the subject. So if I want to edit a message body, I need to
    edit the subject too. Which isn't a problem as that's one of the things I'd
    be changing in any case.

    Approving by replying to the "confirm" email with approved: password accepts
    the taboo word.

    An oddity but not a problem.

    2. Thanks for the suggestion to drag the message into drafts. Unfortunately
    it only opens as an email to be read, not as an email I can edit. :(

    But.. finally I worked out what to put in Google to find help and discovered
    "Other actions - resend."

    So, for anyone else wanting to do this in Outlook:
    - MM is set to notify me of held messages.
    - double click the attachment called the subject (that has the filtered word
    "digest" in it.)
    - "Other actions > resend"
    - Edit subject (even with approved:pw in the body, MM won't let "digest"
    through the filter) and body.
    - Send.

    And the message reaches the list, edited, but with the original sender as
    "from."

    I'm there!

    Thanks for your help.

    Clare

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mark Sapiro [mailto:mark at msapiro.net]
    Sent: 29 December 2009 23:53
    To: Clare Redstone; mailman-users at python.org
    Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Replying to digests

    Clare Redstone wrote:
    I might exceptionally see if I can edit and resend messages when I think
    it's particularly worth it and the sender likely to be flummoxed by being
    asked to clean and resend. I'm having trouble following the instructions
    though.

    I use Outlook 2007 on Windows XP so don't have Mutt.
    What you can do depends on your MUA. I do the
    following occasionally (when a quoted digest is held for size). I have
    admin_immed_notify set to yes, so I receive a notice containing the
    post as part 2 of 3 message parts. First, I discard the original held
    message. Then, using Mutt, I open the notice and then the
    message/rfc822 part containing the post, edit it...<<

    In Outlook, I get an email telling me there's a message waiting for
    authorisation, with 2 attachments: one called by the post subject and the
    other called "confirm 2ff72..." long string of numbers/letters.

    Yes, that's correct. The one with the 'confirm ...' subject can be used
    to approve or discard the original. If you open that message and reply
    to it, the original post will be discarded. If you insert "Approved:
    <password>" as the first line of that reply, the original UNEDITED
    post will ba accepted for the list.

    Test 1. "Subject" is the actual rogue post. I can use reply or forward, edit
    the message and address it to the list. I changed options to send in plain
    text, wrote approved: password at the top of the body and, just below that,
    changed the line "To: testlist at ..." to "Resent-To: testlist@ ..."

    The Approved: <password> here may or may not be needed. It is only to
    ensure that the resent message doesn't get held a second time. If you
    edit out the things that caused it to be held, you don't need the
    Approved: <password>.

    The message made it through OK, but appears to be from me instead of from
    the original sender, and has the headers written at the top of the body of
    the message in the same way any replied to or forwarded email would have
    (albeit changed to Resent-To.)

    Yes. That is because you are replying or forwarding. The headers you
    are editing are copies of the original message headers in the body of
    your reply/forward. You are effectively creating a new message From:
    you to the list, and this is not what you want to do.

    So I've got it working in part and this will do if there isn't a
    straightforward solution. The "approved" bit worked and I could edit the
    message, but how do I make a "Resent-To" instead of a "Forward?"

    The Approved: bit may or may not have been required as I note above.

    Which is what I think you mean by:
    and then 'bounce' it
    to the list. 'Bounce' is Mutt's term for resending the original
    message to additional recipients. This is not forwarding; it is
    resending with the original headers. Not all MUAs can do this.<<

    Is it possible in Outlook?

    I don't know. What happens if you drag the attachment containing the
    original message to your "Drafts" folder? Do you have such a thing? If
    so, you might be able to do that, and then edit the "draft" and send
    it. I don't know if that would work, but it is worth a try.

    Another odd thing is that although it's been approved (via email) and
    received by list members, the original post is still sitting in the admin
    queue on the web interface. So I'll need to remember to delete it manually.

    Right. The original post will always have to be manually deleted. Even
    if you get the editing down so the resend is From: the original sender
    with the original Message-ID: and In-Reply-To: and References: headers
    (for threading in the archives, although if it's a reply to a digest,
    it won't be threaded anyway), it's still a separate post as far as
    Mailman is concerned, and the original has to be manually discarded.

    One of the wiki pages you linked to, about editing messages before approving
    them (thank you, very helpful) says,
    If this feature is not available in your MUA, you can still post the
    edited message directly if you are on a
    machine with an MTA, e.g., sendmail, etc., by saving the edited message in a
    file and giving a command
    similar to the following:
    /path/to/sendmail list at example.com < edited_message_file<<

    I haven't a clue what any of that means so guess it's beyond me.

    That is not directly applicable to Windows XP without installing other
    software. It would be possible to do this with a Windows MUA like
    popcorn <http://www.ultrafunk.com/popcorn/>.

    If you configured popcorn to be able to send mail, you could save the
    original message part from outlook and then open it as a draft with
    popcorn and then edit and send it. That is possibly the easiest thing
    if you need to install something, but try the outlook drafts idea
    first.

    Thank you again for such a helpful reply. Any solutions getting Resent-To
    (Bounce?) to work through Outlook?

    Try the drafts idea. There may actually be a way to directly resend a
    message from outlook, but I know little about it, and the drafts trick
    is all I can think of.

    --
    Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
    San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
  • Mark Sapiro at Dec 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm

    Clare Redstone quoted me and wrote:
    The Approved: <password> here may or may not be needed. It is only to
    ensure that the resent message doesn't get held a second time. If you edit
    out the things that caused it to be held, you don't need the Approved:
    <password>. <

    I just checked what was happening again. Even with "approved: password" at
    the beginning of the message I forwarded, MM filtered on the taboo word
    ("digest") in the subject. So if I want to edit a message body, I need to
    edit the subject too. Which isn't a problem as that's one of the things I'd
    be changing in any case.

    Actually, there is a real problem with using an Approved:
    header/pseudo-header in this context. It won't stop a post from being
    held by header_filter_rules because SpamDetect comes before Approve in
    the global handler pipeline, but there is a more serious problem. If a
    message containing an Approved: header/pseudo-header is held by
    header_filter_rules and subsequently approved, the Approved:
    header/pseudo-header is not removed from the message.

    Approving by replying to the "confirm" email with approved: password accepts
    the taboo word.

    An oddity but not a problem.

    Well, as I say above, it is a problem if you put an Approved:
    header/pseudo-header in your edited message, and your edited message
    gets held by header_filter_rules. In that case, when you approve the
    edited message, the Approved: header/pseudo-header isn't removed.

    2. Thanks for the suggestion to drag the message into drafts. Unfortunately
    it only opens as an email to be read, not as an email I can edit. :(

    But.. finally I worked out what to put in Google to find help and discovered
    "Other actions - resend."

    So, for anyone else wanting to do this in Outlook:
    - MM is set to notify me of held messages.
    - double click the attachment called the subject (that has the filtered word
    "digest" in it.)
    - "Other actions > resend"
    - Edit subject (even with approved:pw in the body, MM won't let "digest"
    through the filter) and body.
    - Send.

    And the message reaches the list, edited, but with the original sender as
    "from."

    I'm there!

    Cool!

    I'm going to add your findings plus info about the Approved: header to
    the FAQ. Thanks for reporting back.

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

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupmailman-users @
categoriespython
postedDec 28, '09 at 4:55p
activeDec 30, '09 at 1:53p
posts11
users3
websitelist.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase