[ SweetGeek writes: ]
>
> [ Virtual Joe writes: ]
>
> ## >>>> get testlist TOPICS
> ## **** List 'testlist' is a private list.
> ## **** Only members of the list can do a 'get'.
> ## **** You aren't a member of list 'testlist'.
>
> Joe, I'm having possibly-the-same problem w/a list for which I am not the
> owner, but -approval. And I do *not* have any access to the machine on
> which it's run. 1.94.1; they recently upgraded -- from 1.93, I
> believe... Prior to the upgrade, who was private, but it *worked*.
Well, yes and no. It worked too well, in that there wasn't much control
over who could 'who'.
> Now, I -- and everyone else subbed -- gets the same error-message:
>
> >>>> who [LISTNAME]
> **** List '[LISTNAME]' is a private list.
> **** Only members of the list can do a 'who'.
> **** You [ Varda Reisner Bruhin <varda@varda.org> ] aren't
> a member of list '[LISTNAME]'.
> >>>>
>
> Except that I am. But my sub (as are all the others) is *just*
> varda@varda.org -- not Varda Reisner Bruhin <varda@varda.org> or
> varda@varda.org (Varda Reisner Bruhin). We sub addresses only, no names
> -- a decision the listowner made way-back-when.
>
> But if I delete my name, and mail to the majordomo with just my address
> (no matter what mailer I use), I still get the same message... and so
> does every other subscriber on my list[s].
As you see, the fluff around the address is stripped away before any
comparisons are made, so it's irrelevant.
> I, as -approval, can issue an "approve PASSWORD who LISTNAME" and get the
> who-list, but only I and the listowner, as the only ones with the
> password, can do that, of course.
>
> (At least that's an improvement; we weren't able to do that in the
> previous version they were using... Anyone know why that might be?)
New features in the new version.
> What I *believe* are the relevant settings in the config-file are:
>
> Regular list:
>
> private_who = yes
> who_access = list
> strip = yes
How about the restrict_post setting? What's apparently not widely known
is that the 'list' setting on the *_access variables interacts with
'restrict_post' in some rather non-intuitive ways. There was a
discussion about this a month ago which resulted in my submitting a
patch that would change the config file description on each of the
*_access variables:
+"One of three values: open, list, closed. Open allows anyone
+access to this command and closed completely disables the
+command for everyone. List allows only list members access,
+or if restrict_post is defined, only the addresses in those
+files are allowed access.",
IOW, if you have 'restrict_post' set to some files *other* than the
list, not only can only the addresses in those files post, only they can
'who' or use whatever other *_access variable is set to 'list' (i.e.
'which', 'index', 'get', etc).
If 'restrict_post' is not set, then *_access defaults to the list *and*
the alternate list, if such exists, where the "alternate list" for test
would be test-digest and vice versa.
> Speaking of the config file and email: Is there a way to change just one
> or two settings, without sending in an entire newconfig?
Not yet, but it's in the works for 2.x.
> -- Varda, [...]
> (And who probably should've changed her personal-name in Pine before
> sending this... double-embarrassment!)
Her *quite* personal name! Woo-woo! ;-)
--
Dave Wolfe
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
