Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Users
(June 1994)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: which fails for private lists?
From: "John P. Rouillard" <rouilj @ cs . umb . edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 10:03:29 -0400
To: Doug . Plate @ cdsmn . mn . org (Doug Plate Sr.)
Cc: Majordomo-Users @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Jun 1994 14:00:00 CDT." <m0qAjuY-0002kAC@cdsmn>


In message <m0qAjuY-0002kAC@cdsmn>, Doug Plate Sr. writes:
>>
>>In message <199406021358.AA104063@foo.ans.net>,
>>Dan Simoes writes:
>>
>>>According to majordomo itself, it seems that a 'which' on 
>>>a private list will only work for the sender.
>>>In practice, a which fails completely if the list is private.
>>>Is this normal behavior?
>>
>[Explanation deleted]
>
>
>Actually John, I think this is a real bug in 1.62.  The original code in the
> 
>do_which subroutine looks like:
>
>       $list = $_;
>        if ((-e "$listdir/$list.private")
>                && (! &is_list_member($reply_to, $listdir, $clean_list))) {
>            # skip private lists that the requestor isn't a member of
>            next;
>        }
>
>Where you can see that the "$clean_list" argument to is_list_member is bogus
>(undef).  I had to patch mine to look like:
>
>       $list = $_;
>        if ((-e "$listdir/$list.private")
>                && (! &is_list_member($reply_to, $listdir, $list))) {
>            # skip private lists that the requestor isn't a member of
>            next;
>        }
>
>Then it worked.  Correct me if I've missed something, but I had to patch mine.
>I would have reported the bug when I found it, but with the release of 1.90,
>I figured that was pointless (aparently I was wrong :-).

That bit of code is fixed in 1.90, and reads:

	if ( &cf_ck_bool($list,"private_which")
		&& (! &is_list_member($reply_to, $listdir, $list))) {
	    # skip private lists that the requestor isn't a member of
	    next;
	}

Please feel free to forward bug reports for majordomo 1.6x to me. I
will make sure that the relevent code bits in 1.9x get fixed if the
bug has been carried over. Note that I am not really answering
questions about 1.62 or ealier. I defer to Brent for answers to those
questions.

				-- John
John Rouillard

Senior Systems Consultant (SERL Project) University of Massachusetts at Boston
rouilj@cs.umb.edu (preferred)            Boston, MA, (617) 287-6480
==============================================================================
My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions.


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Question/problem with the new resend
From: Adrian Barker <ccaaarb@ucl.ac.uk>
Next: [no subject]
From: brownal@fwl.org (Albert Brown)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: which fails for private lists?
From: Doug.Plate@cdsmn.mn.org (Doug Plate Sr.)
Next: Archiving or no archiving
From: pzee@express.com (Philip J. Zee)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com