Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Users
(April 1999)
 

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

Subject: Re: Approved: password
From: Vicki Brown <vlb @ cfcl . com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:12:03 -0700
To: Majordomo-Users @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <14110.3700.488984.568518@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
References: <v04204d02b33d6a12c79c@[207.135.77.148]><377e5584.2358803840@smtp.omsys.com><v04204d07b34134193f5c@[207.135.77.148]><14110.3700.488984.568518@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>

At 13:44 -0400 04/21/1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> >Of course, lines 1-7 weren't visible when I edited the message for sending.
>
>That looks correct. You say the message was delivered, but the
>Approved field wasn't stripped?


Yep, that's my story and I'm sticking to it ;-)
Besides, I can prove it :-)

>Did the Date and Message-Id fields in
>the copy you received match these?

I don't know... I don't receive a copy; I'm not a member of that list...
Should they? What would it mean if they did/didn't?
The server is about 10 yards away. I rather doubt the mail got "stuck".


>
>Don't be coy. What mailer did you use? I'm not aware of any mailers
>that insert extra lines, but it's possible.


Eudora. I don't _know_ if it inserted a line for me. All I _know_ is 
that I followed the instructions and the next thing I know I'm 
looking at mail on someone else's screen and Yipes! the password is 
in the message!


>
>The approval interface is arguably bad, but many thousands of lists
>have used it for several years, so it's at least usable.


Um, let's not go there, shall we? I've done Quality. That's up there 
with "Our engineers released the product that way... therefore that 
cannot be a bug".


>
> >Thus the program at the other end, Majordomo, must take into account the
> >possibility that a blank line WILL be in this position... and must deal
> >with it.
>
>But it doesn't, and nobody has ever claimed a need for it to, which is
>why it's unlikely that the need has suddenly come up now.


OK. Do you have a better answer as to why the password made it into 
the final message as distributed? (Actually I like Jeremy H. 
Griffith's answers; the docs are poorly written and contradictory).

>There are a few possibilities:
>
>  (1) majordomo has a bug in the approval process that leaks
>      passwords,
>  (2) you're not sending the messages in the right format,


I am sending the messages in the right format, as far as I know. What 
happens to them after I press the button to actually send them off is 
not under my control.

>  (3) something is munging your properly-formatted messages before
>      they get to majordomo, or


Something.  Sendmail? Anything is possible.

>  (4) majordomo and/or your list is misconfigured.


Only for Approved: headers????


I followed the directions. Several directions. Different and 
conflicting directions :-) As near as I can tell this is the only 
problem I ever see.The lists come and go, subscribers come and go, 
digests are created and mailed. If this is the only problem I ever 
see, it seems unlikely (to me) to be due to a "misconfiguration". But 
if someone wants to send me suggestions regarding _how_ it might be 
misconfigured, I'll entertain them. I'll even study them.

I'm not, however, going to spend lots of time going through my 
aliases again (they exactly match the O'Reilly book and have been 
reviewed on this list by several people) or my .config files (which 
again exactly match the book). Suggestions as to _what_ might be 
misconfigured will be looked at but I don't have time to go on a 
snipe hunt.


>But they're not "tests", they're production lists that live on
>thousands of majordomo servers serving many thousands of lists. This
>*does* work consistently.

Umm... obviously not _entirely_ consistently :-)

I've worked support. I've worked QA. I've been "bugmeister" for a 
largish team in a large company. "We cannot reproduce it" means 
exactly that. It does not (necessarily) mean "the user goofed". It 
certainly does not mean "there is no problem". It only means "we 
don't know what happened and we can't make it happen here".

I have watched hundreds of bug reports come through on large systems. 
I have been amazed at the very small number of duplicates. Just 
because only one person sees a problem, doesn't mean the problem is 
with the person.

Besides, if my lists do _everything_ I want them to, except that the 
Approved header is sent to the subscribers, well, if that's a 
configuration error, I'm still gonna call it a bug. Because a bug is 
something that isn't supposed to happen.

sigh.

- Vicki

---
      |\      _,,,---,,_       Vicki Brown <vlb@cfcl.com>
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   Journeyman Sourceror: Scripts & Philtres
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'  P.O. Box 1269  San Bruno  CA  94066
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) http://www.cfcl.com/~vlb  http://www.macperl.org



Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Multi-language version of majordomo?
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu>
Next: HELP!! I've erased my .config file!!
From: James MacLachlan <hopeflguy@sprint.ca>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Approved: password
From: Dave Sill <de5@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
Next: Re: Approved: password
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk@QueerNet.ORG>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com