FW: Good old nabble

FW: Good old nabble

[Rod Morris]

On 18 April 2006 16:24, Dave Korn wrote:

> I'd certainly consider that a bug in their software.  It should only archive
>them as they arrive /back/ from the list, not on their way out.  If they
>really want to archive all of their users' rejected posts across all moderated
>or semi-moderated lists, they should perhaps flag them up as 'unconfirmed' or
>somesuch by highlighting them a different colour in the web interface or
>something.

Bug or undocumented feature? Hmmmm.

You're right, we need to resolve this problem. Right now, the message gets
posted locally and we forward the email to the list using the Nabble user's
registered email address as the sender. If the user's post is rejected or if the
user doesn't complete the subscription process or if he gets banned
from the list,
we would only know because we never get the message back from the list.

Currently, we assume that the user screwed up the confirmation step and we
send him an email once a day to remind him to complete it and tell him that
the message didn't go through. But if that never happens, then we do have
a problem.

Flag these messages as 'Pending' sounds like a good idea. I can have our
UI guy come up with something that makes sense and will make it obvious.

Then what? Should we delete them from the archive if they don't go through
after some period of time, a weeks perhaps?

>Hey nabble guys, you're generally quite attentive!  Are you following this
thread?

Yeah, not following, but I got an alert to look into it.

>> How delightful - a new way to confuse people about what mailing list to
>> use for cygwin.

>Surely you mean "How delightful - another bunch of clueless newbs locked
>away in their own little sandbox where none of us will ever have to be
>bothered with seeing or hearing from them! Muhahahahaahaaaaa!" ?   ;-)

Well, the world has not shortage of clueless newbs and we surely don't have
a corner on that market.

BTW: We added a wiki type UI to the archives that allows anyone to edit
the list descriptions and whatnot. If someone on the list wanted to take the
time to register at Nabble, they could add some info that might help to ensure
that people did post to the correct list.

Of course, this would assume that clueless newbs could read which might not
necessarily be true.

Regards,
Rod Morris
Nabble.com

Re: FW: Good old nabble

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:50:42PM -0700, Rod Morris wrote:
>On 18 April 2006 16:24, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> I'd certainly consider that a bug in their software.  It should only archive
>>them as they arrive /back/ from the list, not on their way out.  If they
>>really want to archive all of their users' rejected posts across all moderated
>>or semi-moderated lists, they should perhaps flag them up as 'unconfirmed' or
>>somesuch by highlighting them a different colour in the web interface or
>>something.
>
>Bug or undocumented feature? Hmmmm.

I don't see how it could be construed as anything but a bug.

>You're right, we need to resolve this problem. Right now, the message gets
>posted locally and we forward the email to the list using the Nabble user's
>registered email address as the sender.  If the user's post is rejected
>or if the user doesn't complete the subscription process or if he gets
>banned from the list, we would only know because we never get the
>message back from the list.

I can't quite parse the above but ezmlm does send a bounce message when
lists@nabble.com tries to send a message to the cygwin-apps mailing list.

>Currently, we assume that the user screwed up the confirmation step and we
>send him an email once a day to remind him to complete it and tell him that
>the message didn't go through. But if that never happens, then we do have
>a problem.
>
>Flag these messages as 'Pending' sounds like a good idea. I can have our
>UI guy come up with something that makes sense and will make it obvious.

nabble is blocked from sending emal to cygwin-apps.  So no matter what
process the user goes through on your end, their messages will never
show up in the cygwin-apps mailing list.

>Then what? Should we delete them from the archive if they don't go through
>after some period of time, a weeks perhaps?

You're calling this "an archive" but it is not an archive of cygwin-apps
if it (even briefly) contains a copy of a message which never was part of
actual cygwin-apps traffic.

Can you mark sourceware's subscriber-only mailing lists as read-only on
your end so that attempts to send a message are blocked immediately?

OTOH, you could also notice when sourceware sends you a message indicating
that your message was denied and remove the message.

cgf

Re: FW: Good old nabble

[Igor Peshansky]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:50:42PM -0700, Rod Morris wrote:
>
> >You're right, we need to resolve this problem. Right now, the
> >message gets posted locally and we forward the email to the list
> >using the Nabble user's registered email address as the sender.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >If the user's post is rejected or if the user doesn't complete the
> >subscription process or if he gets banned from the list, we would
> >only know because we never get the message back from the list.
>
> I can't quite parse the above but ezmlm does send a bounce message when
> lists@nabble.com tries to send a message to the cygwin-apps mailing
> list.

I think I can parse it.  Look at the underlined text above.  I believe
this means that the bounce goes back to the user, and the Nabble software
never receives it...

> >Currently, we assume that the user screwed up the confirmation step and
> >we send him an email once a day to remind him to complete it and tell
> >him that the message didn't go through. But if that never happens, then
> >we do have a problem.
> >
> >Flag these messages as 'Pending' sounds like a good idea. I can have our
> >UI guy come up with something that makes sense and will make it obvious.
>
> nabble is blocked from sending emal to cygwin-apps.  So no matter what
> process the user goes through on your end, their messages will never
> show up in the cygwin-apps mailing list.

Hmm, does Nabble actually try to subscribe them to the list? :-o

> >Then what? Should we delete them from the archive if they don't go
> >through after some period of time, a weeks perhaps?
>
> You're calling this "an archive" but it is not an archive of cygwin-apps
> if it (even briefly) contains a copy of a message which never was part
> of actual cygwin-apps traffic.
>
> Can you mark sourceware's subscriber-only mailing lists as read-only on
> your end so that attempts to send a message are blocked immediately?
>
> OTOH, you could also notice when sourceware sends you a message
> indicating that your message was denied and remove the message.

Can Nabble be set up so that the bounce message goes to Nabble and not to
the user?
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: FW: Good old nabble

[Nabble Support]

On 4/18/06, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:50:42PM -0700, Rod Morris wrote:
> >
> > >You're right, we need to resolve this problem. Right now, the
> > >message gets posted locally and we forward the email to the list
> > >using the Nabble user's registered email address as the sender.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >If the user's post is rejected or if the user doesn't complete the
> > >subscription process or if he gets banned from the list, we would
> > >only know because we never get the message back from the list.
> >
> > I can't quite parse the above but ezmlm does send a bounce message when
> > lists@nabble.com tries to send a message to the cygwin-apps mailing
> > list.
>
> I think I can parse it.  Look at the underlined text above.  I believe
> this means that the bounce goes back to the user, and the Nabble software
> never receives it...
>

Correct. I still need to verify that this is what is happening as
ezmlm looks at the envelope sender in some instances and uses it as if
it were the from. There a whole spf issue to deal with as a gateway.

> > >Currently, we assume that the user screwed up the confirmation step and
> > >we send him an email once a day to remind him to complete it and tell
> > >him that the message didn't go through. But if that never happens, then
> > >we do have a problem.
> > >
> > >Flag these messages as 'Pending' sounds like a good idea. I can have our
> > >UI guy come up with something that makes sense and will make it obvious.
> >
> > nabble is blocked from sending emal to cygwin-apps.  So no matter what
> > process the user goes through on your end, their messages will never
> > show up in the cygwin-apps mailing list.
>
> Hmm, does Nabble actually try to subscribe them to the list? :-o
>

Yes. If a user attempts to post, he gets a warning that he must
subscribe. The user must click to do so and we tell him to check his
email and complete the confirmation or his post will not go through.
After this process, he can post the message. We then send the message
to the list under the user's email. We have no way of knowing whether
he completed the subscription process until after checking new posts
to the list to see if his post comes back from the list. If this
happens, we send an alert to the user once a day to remind him to
correct he problem and tell him that the post is still pending and not
sent. This is where we need to tag the post as pending and remove it
after some X period of time.


> > >Then what? Should we delete them from the archive if they don't go
> > >through after some period of time, a weeks perhaps?
> >
> > You're calling this "an archive" but it is not an archive of cygwin-apps
> > if it (even briefly) contains a copy of a message which never was part
> > of actual cygwin-apps traffic.
> >
> > Can you mark sourceware's subscriber-only mailing lists as read-only on
> > your end so that attempts to send a message are blocked immediately?
> >
> > OTOH, you could also notice when sourceware sends you a message
> > indicating that your message was denied and remove the message.
>
> Can Nabble be set up so that the bounce message goes to Nabble and not to
> the user?

I don't believe it's possible if we force the user to subscribe and
the gateway posts using the user's email as it should. However, we do
know that something was wrong if we don't get the post back from the
list. We don't know what the problem is though usually it's failusre
to complete the confirmation step.

Rod Morris
Nabble.com

Re: FW: Good old nabble

[Rod Morris]

On 4/18/06, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:50:42PM -0700, Rod Morris wrote:
> >On 18 April 2006 16:24, Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> >> I'd certainly consider that a bug in their software.  It should only archive
> >>them as they arrive /back/ from the list, not on their way out.  If they
> >>really want to archive all of their users' rejected posts across all moderated
> >>or semi-moderated lists, they should perhaps flag them up as 'unconfirmed' or
> >>somesuch by highlighting them a different colour in the web interface or
> >>something.
> >
> >Bug or undocumented feature? Hmmmm.
>
> I don't see how it could be construed as anything but a bug.
>

Sorry, I intended that comment to be sarcastically humerous.


> >You're right, we need to resolve this problem. Right now, the message gets
> >posted locally and we forward the email to the list using the Nabble user's
> >registered email address as the sender.  If the user's post is rejected
> >or if the user doesn't complete the subscription process or if he gets
> >banned from the list, we would only know because we never get the
> >message back from the list.
>
> I can't quite parse the above but ezmlm does send a bounce message when
> lists@nabble.com tries to send a message to the cygwin-apps mailing list.
>

This was all changed in the release that was posted last month. We do
not use lists for any lists that use ezmlm. We force the user to
subscribe and send the post with the user's email, so we don't get the
bounce message.


> >Currently, we assume that the user screwed up the confirmation step and we
> >send him an email once a day to remind him to complete it and tell him that
> >the message didn't go through. But if that never happens, then we do have
> >a problem.
> >
> >Flag these messages as 'Pending' sounds like a good idea. I can have our
> >UI guy come up with something that makes sense and will make it obvious.
>
> nabble is blocked from sending emal to cygwin-apps.  So no matter what
> process the user goes through on your end, their messages will never
> show up in the cygwin-apps mailing list.
>

I wasn't aware of that. We send mail now with lists@nabble as the
envelope sender and with the user as the from, requiring the user to
subscribe. But if lists or any Nabble email is blocked then the user
may not be getting the bounce. I need to check to see if we're getting
it. This whole issue comes back to whether or not you want to allow
anyone to use the gateway for posting to the list.


> >Then what? Should we delete them from the archive if they don't go through
> >after some period of time, a weeks perhaps?
>
> You're calling this "an archive" but it is not an archive of cygwin-apps
> if it (even briefly) contains a copy of a message which never was part of
> actual cygwin-apps traffic.
>

We've discussing several ways to resolve that problem. Marking the
post as pending seems to be the best solution. Then we'd remove it
completely after some period of time. Not showing it at all to the
user is confusing. More likely than not, the user would think that it
didn't go through and then post the same thing again and again. We
want to come up with a solution that fits for all the lists, not just
cygwin-apps.

> Can you mark sourceware's subscriber-only mailing lists as read-only on
> your end so that attempts to send a message are blocked immediately?
>

Sure. If any mail with Nabble as the envelope sender is getting
bounced, then there's no point in allowing local posting via the
gateway at all. We can set any list to be 1) Subscription only, 2)
Read only, 3) Subscription not required.

cygwin-apps and all other ezmlm lists are set to subscription only now.

> OTOH, you could also notice when sourceware sends you a message indicating
> that your message was denied and remove the message.
>

Yes, if we are getting the bounce, then we can. I need to see what
we're getting. As I mentioned, the mail goes with lists as the
envelope sender and the user as the from. I don't know which is
getting the bounce. Normally, the user would get it if he didn't
complete the subscription confirmation step and we only know there is
a problem because we don't get the message back from the list.

Rod Morris
Nabble.com

RE: FW: Good old nabble

[Dave Korn]

On 19 April 2006 18:52, Rod Morris wrote:

> On 4/18/06, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:50:42PM -0700, Rod Morris wrote:
>>> On 18 April 2006 16:24, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I'd certainly consider that a bug in their software.  It should only
>>>> archive them as they arrive /back/ from the list, not on their way out. 
>>>> If they really want to archive all of their users' rejected posts across
>>>> all moderated or semi-moderated lists, they should perhaps flag them up
>>>> as 'unconfirmed' or somesuch by highlighting them a different colour in
>>>> the web interface or something.
>>> 
>>> Bug or undocumented feature? Hmmmm.
>> 
>> I don't see how it could be construed as anything but a bug.
>> 
> 
> Sorry, I intended that comment to be sarcastically humerous.

  If you wanted us to know that it was humerus, you should have given us a
nudge!



  <ba-ba-dammm-tissshhhhh!>

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

FW: Good old nabble

[Dave Korn]

On 18 April 2006 16:24, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> Somebody is desperately trying to send an off-topic message to cygwin-apps
> via nabble.  Since nabble is not allowed to send email to cygwin-apps, the
> messages are bouncing.
> 
> But that doesn't stop nabble from archiving the messages on its site:
> 
>
http://www.nabble.com/Problems-using-Cygwin-with-PHP-on-Windows-t1467304.html#
a3965603
 
  I'd certainly consider that a bug in their software.  It should only archive
them as they arrive /back/ from the list, not on their way out.  If they
really want to archive all of their users' rejected posts across all moderated
or semi-moderated lists, they should perhaps flag them up as 'unconfirmed' or
somesuch by highlighting them a different colour in the web interface or
something.

  Hey nabble guys, you're generally quite attentive!  Are you following this
thread?

> How delightful - a new way to confuse people about what mailing list to
> use for cygwin.

  Surely you mean "How delightful - another bunch of clueless newbs locked
away in their own little sandbox where none of us will ever have to be
bothered with seeing or hearing from them! Muhahahahaahaaaaa!" ?   ;-)

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: FW: Good old nabble

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 18 April 2006 16:24, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>How delightful - a new way to confuse people about what mailing list to
>>use for cygwin.
>
>Surely you mean "How delightful - another bunch of clueless newbs
>locked away in their own little sandbox where none of us will ever have
>to be bothered with seeing or hearing from them! Muhahahahaahaaaaa!" ?
>;-)

Yes, this will be sort of like that please-unsubscribe-me mailing list
used for people who send "please unsubscribe me" messages.  It will just
be a bunch of clueless users wondering why no one bothers to respond to
them.

Actually, it's a lot like the cygwin irc channel except that the users
probably won't log out five minutes after asking a question.

cgf

Re: FW: Good old nabble

[Igor Peshansky]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >On 18 April 2006 16:24, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>How delightful - a new way to confuse people about what mailing list to
> >>use for cygwin.
> >
> >Surely you mean "How delightful - another bunch of clueless newbs
> >locked away in their own little sandbox where none of us will ever have
> >to be bothered with seeing or hearing from them! Muhahahahaahaaaaa!" ?
> >;-)
>
> Yes, this will be sort of like that please-unsubscribe-me mailing list
> used for people who send "please unsubscribe me" messages.  It will just
> be a bunch of clueless users wondering why no one bothers to respond to
> them.

Oh, and it'll be filled with "me too"s, of course.  As in "I try
unsubscribe from list, why nobody reply?" -- "Me too.  What is wrong with
you people?" -- "Don't blame me, I'm also subscribed and can't
unsubscribe, and I'm a 3-year veteran of the computing profession; see my
resume". :-)

> Actually, it's a lot like the cygwin irc channel except that the users
> probably won't log out five minutes after asking a question.

It's worse, since nobody can prevent people from replying to 3-year-old
posts saying "Does this still not work" instead of just trying it out.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

RE: FW: Good old nabble

[Dave Korn]

On 18 April 2006 18:08, Igor Peshansky wrote:

> Oh, and it'll be filled with "me too"s, of course.  As in "I try
> unsubscribe from list, why nobody reply?" -- "Me too.  What is wrong with
> you people?" -- "Don't blame me, I'm also subscribed and can't
> unsubscribe, and I'm a 3-year veteran of the computing profession; see my
> resume". :-)


  "Get me off this mailing list or I'll call the FBI!"

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: FW: Good old nabble

[Igor Peshansky]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Dave Korn wrote:

> On 18 April 2006 18:08, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
> > Oh, and it'll be filled with "me too"s, of course.  As in "I try
> > unsubscribe from list, why nobody reply?" -- "Me too.  What is wrong with
> > you people?" -- "Don't blame me, I'm also subscribed and can't
> > unsubscribe, and I'm a 3-year veteran of the computing profession; see my
> > resume". :-)
>
>   "Get me off this mailing list or I'll call the FBI!"

Heh.  "Get me out of the FBI files or I'll report you to the Cygwin
mailing list!" :-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: FW: Good old nabble

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 01:08:26PM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> >On 18 April 2006 16:24, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >>How delightful - a new way to confuse people about what mailing list to
>> >>use for cygwin.
>> >
>> >Surely you mean "How delightful - another bunch of clueless newbs
>> >locked away in their own little sandbox where none of us will ever have
>> >to be bothered with seeing or hearing from them! Muhahahahaahaaaaa!" ?
>> >;-)
>>
>> Yes, this will be sort of like that please-unsubscribe-me mailing list
>> used for people who send "please unsubscribe me" messages.  It will just
>> be a bunch of clueless users wondering why no one bothers to respond to
>> them.
>
>Oh, and it'll be filled with "me too"s, of course.  As in "I try
>unsubscribe from list, why nobody reply?" -- "Me too.  What is wrong with
>you people?" -- "Don't blame me, I'm also subscribed and can't
>unsubscribe, and I'm a 3-year veteran of the computing profession; see my
>resume". :-)

Actually, I was talking about a real mailing list that was in use a few
years ago.  I don't know if it is still in operation anymore.  I seem to
recall that they were forced to shut down.

I'm sure it was filled with all sorts of the above type of fun.

cgf