For remote servers, we cannot advertise `List-Unsubscribe=One-Click`,
which is specified in RFC 8058[^1] to mean that the `List-Unsubscribe`
URL supports a POST request with no arguments to unsubscribe. Because
we show an interstitial and confirmation page, as this is not just a
mailing list which is disabled if you click the link, it does not
support the mail system performing the unsubscribe for the user.
Remove the inaccurate header for remote servers.
[^1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8058
612f2c73d6 started passing add_context to
`send_custom_server_email`, but did not make it make use of it.
Also add the `hostname` as a built-in value, since that is most likely
the most useful property.
Saying `**options: str` is a lie, since it contains bools. We pluck
out the two bools that we need properly typed because we will be
pushing them into function calls, and type them explicitly as bools.
Currently, the sender names for outgoing emails sent by Zulip
are hardcoded. It should be configurable for self-hosted systems.
This commit makes the 'Zulip' part a variable in the following
email sender names: 'Zulip Account Security', 'Zulip Digest',
and 'Zulip Notifications' by introducing a settings variable
'SERVICE_NAME' with the default value as f"{EXTERNAL_HOST} Zulip".
Fixes: #23857
The set of objects in the `users` object can be very large (in some
cases, literally every object in the database) and making them into a
giant `id in (...)` to handle the one tiny corner case which we never
use is silly.
Switch the `--users` codepath to returning a QuerySet as well, so it
can be composed. We pass a QuerySet into send_custom_email as well,
so it can ensure that the realm is `select_related` in as well, no
matter how the QuerySet was generated.
Substituting the rendered body via Jinja2 means that it cannot
perform any interpolation itself. While the string replacement is
hacky, it is the only solution which avoids running Jinja2 more than
once, and also allows the user-supplied content to have Jinja2
substitutions in it.
9d97af6ebb addressed the one major source of inconsistent data which
would be solved by simply re-attempting the ScheduledEmail row. Every
other instance that we have seen since then has been a corrupt or
modified database in some way, which does not self-resolve. This
results in an endless stream of emails to the administrator, and no
forward progress.
Drop this to a warning, and make it remove the offending row. This
ensures we make forward progress.
This commit places the email CSS into the `style` tag located in the
`head` section. This resolves the issue of being unable to apply
certain CSS styles that cannot be inlined, such as media queries and
pseudo-classes.
In #23380 we want to change all ocurrences of `uri` to `url`. This
commit changes the ocurrences of `uri` appeared in files related to
email, including templates (`.html`, `.txt`) and backend (`.py`)
codes.
In `email.md`, `base_images_uri` is changed to `images_base_url` -
the words `base` and `images` are swapped and plural form is added
for `image`. This is becasue the former is not found anywhere in
the codebase while the later appears a lot. To reduce confusion,
this doccumentation changed accordingly.
Previously, we had an architecture where CSS inlining for emails was
done at provision time in inline_email_css.py. This was necessary
because the library we were using for this, Premailer, was extremely
slow, and doing the inlining for every outgoing email would have been
prohibitively expensive.
Now that we've migrated to a more modern library that inlines the
small amount of CSS we have into emails nearly instantly, we are able
to remove the complex architecture built to work around Premailer
being slow and just do the CSS inlining as the final step in sending
each individual email.
This has several significant benefits:
* Removes a fiddly provisioning step that made the edit/refresh cycle
for modifying email templates confusing; there's no longer a CSS
inlining step that, if you forget to do it, results in your testing a
stale variant of the email templates.
* Fixes internationalization problems related to translators working
with pre-CSS-inlined emails, and then Django trying to apply the
translators to the post-CSS-inlined version.
* Makes the send_custom_email pipeline simpler and easier to improve.
Signed-off-by: Daniil Fadeev <fadeevd@zulip.com>
This is the behaviour inherited from Django[^1]. While setting the
password to empty (`email_password = `) in
`/etc/zulip/zulip-secrets.conf` also would suffice, it's unclear what
the user would have been putting into `EMAIL_HOST_USER` in that
context.
Because we previously did not warn when `email_password` was not
present in `zulip-secrets.conf`, having the error message clarify the
correct configuration for disabling SMTP auth is important.
Fixes: #23938.
[^1]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/ref/settings/#std-setting-EMAIL_HOST_USER
To explain the rationale of this change, for example, there is
`get_user_activity_summary` which accepts either a `Collection[UserActivity]`,
where `QuerySet[T]` is not strictly `Sequence[T]` because its slicing behavior
is different from the `Protocol`, making `Collection` necessary.
Similarily, we should have `Iterable[T]` instead of `List[T]` so that
`QuerySet[T]` will also be an acceptable subtype, or `Sequence[T]` when we
also expect it to be indexed.
Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <p359101898@gmail.com>
This applies a commonly-used, though non-RFC, header which suppresses
auto-replies to the message. There is a small chance that this will
result in bad filters thinking the messages *from Zulip* are
themselves auto-replies, but this seems a small risk.
Fixes: #13193.
Fixes#20132.
EMAIL_HOST_USER without EMAIL_HOST_PASSWORD is not going to be a valid
configuration, and may result from making mistake in correctly setting
it in the secrets file and end up being a non-obvious cause of failure
to send email. Logging an error will be useful for detecting it. Further
conditions can be added to the function in the future.
It is better to press on, than stop halfway through due to a user
whose email no longer works. The exception is already logged, which
is sufficient here, as this is generally run interactively.
Calling `email.save()` is only needed if we altered `email.address`;
it is unnecessary if we called `email.users.add(...)` which will have
done its own INSERT.
This fixes two bugs: the most obvious is that there is a race where a
ScheduledEmail object could be observed in the window between creation
and when users are added; this is a momentary instance when the object
has no users, but one that will resolve itself.
The more subtle is that .save() will, if no records were found to be
updated, _re-create_ the object as it exists in memory, using an
INSERT[1]. Thus, there is a race with `deliver_scheduled_emails`
between when the users are added, and when `email.save()` runs:
1. Web request creates ScheduledEmail object
2. Web request creates ScheduledEmailUsers object
3. deliver_scheduled_emails locks the former, preventing updates.
4. deliver_scheduled_emails deletes both objects, commits, releasing lock
5. Web request calls `email.save()`; UPDATE finds no rows, so it
re-creates the ScheduledEmail object.
6. Future deliver_scheduled_emails runs find a ScheduledEmail with no
attending ScheduledEmailUsers objects
Wrapping the logical creation of both of these in a single transaction
avoids both of these races.
[1] https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.2/ref/models/instances/#how-django-knows-to-update-vs-insert
Only clear_scheduled_emails previously took a lock on the users before
removing them; make deliver_scheduled_emails do so as well, by using
prefetch_related to ensure that the table appears in the SELECT. This
is not necessary for correctness, since all accesses of
ScheduledEmailUser first access the ScheduledEmail and lock it; it is
merely for consistency.
Since SELECT ... FOR UPDATE takes an UPDATE lock on all tables
mentioned in the SELECT, merely doing the prefetch is sufficient to
lock both tables; no `on=(...)` is needed to `select_for_update`.
This also does not address the pre-existing potential deadlock from
these two use cases, where both try to lock the same ScheduledEmail
rows in opposite orders.
No codepath except tests passes in more than one user_profile -- and
doing so is what makes the deduplication necessary.
Simplify the API by making it only take one user_profile id.
Previously, the output would make it look like we sent an actual email
to the first user in the dry_run output, which is very confusing.
The `dry_run` code path already prints all the accounts that would
have been emailed at the end, so there's no reason to have this line
before the dry_run check.
Additionally, we move after the `get_connection` check because
failures at that stage shouldn't result in logging an attempt to send
an email.
An organization with at most 5 users that is behind on payments isn't
worth spending time on investigating the situation.
For larger organizations, we likely want somewhat different logic that
at least does not void invoices.
Anders Kaseorg
Alex Vandiver
Prakhar Pratyush
Daniil Fadeev
AcKindle3
Zixuan James Li
Mateusz Mandera
Tim Abbott
PIG208
Vishnu KS
Suyash Vardhan Mathur