incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2011 03:07:45 GMT
Whoa, now I am really confused.  This seems to have gone in the opposite direction than what
I thought.

First it narrowed down to privileging some small set of BZ users.

And then protecting our committers that have email addresses.

Also, I don't think there had been any intention to preserve the mailing lists.
 Also, setting their addresses to forward to a different list that is not subscribed to is
just weird.  So I don't understand the list forwarding scenario.

And I have seen no one talk about moving the subscriber lists and adding those subscribers
to a list they did not opt into.

I hope I misunderstand the common understanding about that.


If there is only one thing that can be preserved, I believe it should be the forwarding. 
I understand that's a lot of forwarding, although the demand might not be that high, as a
proportion of the number of forwards served per day.

I shall commit the unpardonable sin of instant design now:


What were once mailing-list e-mail addresses (such as and
could forward to a tombstone dead-letter responder or something that bounces posts sent to
the old lists, giving them some sort of information about available options, perhaps.  -subscribe,
-unsubscribe, -owner, and -help requests and such could be handled politely too (or likely
receive the same response).  That should be a one-time setup and the PPMC could manage and
help set them up, I think.  It would be a passive operation from then on, though it might
be nice to be able to update the tombstone messages as the situation on the Apache side changes.
 The tombstone message might link to a web-site page where there are particulars, since the
web site is easier to set up in advance (on our staging SVN) and continue maintaining after
web-site cutover.  At some point the tombstones could be retired, although it seems harmless
to just leave them and simply continue maintaining the tombstone-referenced web pages as needed.
 (Even when AOOo goes TLP, so long as the OO.o site is perpetuated at http:// *,
there should be no need to fix the tombstone messages.)


With regard to regular e-mail forwarding, it would be nice if folks could maintain their own.

But if it is to be a one-time passive list, I don't think there is any reason to discriminate.
 Just keep forwarding all of them to where they go now.  

There is the small use of people using them as logon IDs (with or without the
and having profiles on the site.  I think that can be simplified by having most of the login
buttons take people to an explanation that they now need to log on separately to the various
properties (bugzilla, wiki, forums), and what to do to find properties that are no longer
part of but have other forms under Apache.  (The manage my own mailing list
subscriptions page would be one of those.)  The logon-use is a PPMC action in maintaining
the migrated web pages and should not require Infrastructure support.  The static forwarding
list and acquisition of the list from Oracle is where Infrastructure is indispensable.  [I
would recommend that the password hashes be brought over too, if possible, just in case there
is an use for them with some sort of utility function later.)

How these addresses are retired is more complex because a bounce is not to the user that has
that e-mail address but someone wanting to reach them, or forward something from a mailing
list, etc.  I figure that can be solved later.


That's my understanding of the two key use cases and my rationale for emphasizing e-mail forwarding
over mailing-list-forwarding (whatever that is envisioned to be).

Am I in violent agreement or am I at odds with where this thread has arrived now?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Schaefer [] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 18:54
Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses

>From: Dave Fisher <>
>To:; Joe Schaefer <>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 9:41 PM
>Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses
>Hi Joe,
>Thanks for the clarity.
>On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> ezmlm and qmail are married packages.
>> qmail is an MTA and ezmlm is a qmail app
>> for managing mailing lists.
>> Given the surprises I've seen here by folks
>> getting used to the whole ezmlm feature-set,
>> I'm confident that Oracle is using something
>> other than that for ooo.
>They are using SYMPA. They allow html. They allow bad SPF.

We could allow html too if that's what the group prefers.
Contrary to popular opinion the "tolerate html" settings
are configurable on a per-list basis with ezmlm.

>> Postfix is what I'd recommend we use for dealing
>> with the forwarding needs, but postfix isn't compatible
>> with ezmlm so we'd need to run that on a separate
>> host.
>> What I'm trying to point out for you here is that
>> the mail server software I'd recommend for forwarding handling
>> and the software I'd prefer using for ML's are incompatible
>> with each other, and I'm not going to run some crazy
>> scheme to try and divvy up the domain between two
>> separate mail servers.
>> Pick your poison in other words, either the focus is
>> on ML's, in which case forwarding addresses only get
>> support limited to a select few (committers say).
>> Otherwise the focus is on forwarding addresses, in which
>> case someone other than infra will be responsible for
>> the upkeep of the mailing list infra for ooo.
>Are the following two configurations accurate statements of what you would support.
>Configuration A - ezmlm/qmail on the usual ASF MTA
>330 OOo MLs w/o subscribers forward to project MLs.
><100 committers/PPMC members with OOo forwards to either an external email or their
apache forwarder. Just the apache address?

Doesn't matter where the forwarders go to, but I'd recommend matching
them up with the address as once they're enabled they won't
ever be changed without a polite plea to infra for help.

>Configuration B - postfix on a jail maintained by the project
>330 OOo MLs w/o subscribers forward to project MLs.
><100 committers/PPMC members with OOo forwards to either an external email or their
apache forwarder.
>>20,000 BZ OOo forwarders to external emails.
>Volunteers for postfix admin.

Not just postfix, but whatever mailing list software
you want to use (mailman say) to manage the ML's for
the domain.  Keep in mind that while
I'm offering to help with the postfix setup and initial
forwarding database drop,  it will require the work
of a PPMC member to provide support for allowing changes
to the forwarding addresses, not to mention list migration.

>I personally prefer Configuration A.

OK, I think you've understood the gist of the choice I'm offering.

Of course that means the phaseout of all the forwarding addresses
will happen pretty much as soon as we cutover the mail service
to ASF gear.

>Let's see if we get Consensus, or if we need a vote.
>We don't need to hurry the MTA migration as much as other OOo services.
>> HTH
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Dave Fisher <>
>>> To:
>>> Cc: "" <>; 'Lawrence Rosen' <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 8:37 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> Now I am confused you mention 3 different possible mail managers for MX for
>>> (1) qmail - does Oracle/Sun use this in addition to SYMPA?
>>> (2) ezmlm - a version of this is the ASF's MTA, correct?
>>> (3) postfix - is this an alternative you mention because it could support a large
forwarding database? and you don't want that "feature" in ezmlm?
>>> If every email to is either forwarded according to a database
or bounced.  If there are no or the minimum required by internet protocols mboxes on the
>>> What is the threshold for being incorporated into the ASF's normal ezmlm? If
all of the forwarders were to addresses would that work?
>>> I guess I don't understand the complexities of Apache's MTA.
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Dave Fisher <>
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Cc: "" <>; 'Lawrence Rosen' <>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 7:47 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses
>>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>> On Nov 1, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>>>> Actually you should know I'm the main
>>>>>> guy who deals with the mail services
>>>>>> at the ASF, so yeah considering my opinion
>>>>>> as relevant might be wise ;-)
>>>>> MX at ASF questions
>>>>> (1) In hosting OOo MX will there be a need for any real mail boxes?
>>>>> (2) Any trouble with double forwarders for securityteam@OO.o?
>>>>> (3) There are currently about 330 MLs that the project would like to
forward. Kay and Rob are emailing these lists and informing about the new lists.
>>>>> It would be good to have these ML forwarders exist as long as the ASF
is handling MLs.
>>>> Personally I have no interest in maintaining whatever mailing list software
>>>> Sun/Oracle chose for managing their lists.  OTOH my experience with qmail
>>>> suggests that such software doesn't have a lot of maintenance requirements,
>>>> so if a reasonable plan were developed for migrating the lists to some ASF
>>>> host that was careful not to preserve list subscriptions, I'd be willing
>>>> help with the transition.
>>>> But over time, because this service isn't a part of our main ezmlm-based
>>>> mailing-list infra, we'd probably not want to be involved in its upkeep,
>>>> and that means we'd be more than happy to shut it down if time proves
>>>> that nobody else here wants to be bothered with that either.
>>>> The PMC will need to sort out how to allocate its resources given that
>>>> constraint.  Infra is happy to assist, and willing to investigate ways
>>>> of incorporating lists into our ezmlm-based infra, but
>>>> that effort will be terminally hampered by the presence of all those
>>>> ooo forwarding addresses that I won't ever expose to qmail.  Sorry.
>>>>> (4) There are less than 100 PPMC/Committers. Some of them have their
lives revolving around their OOo forwarder.
>>>>> Should we allow these trusted people to have their OOo email be forwarded.
I would say to their apache id, but I bet many people in the project have their apache id
pointing at (There might be Apache committers unrelated to AOOo with their
apache id forwarding to OOo.)
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>> Value judgements aren't things I'm equipped to make for the PMC.  I'm
>>>> more than happy to evalate the technical feasibility or lack thereof
>>>> for providing an indefinite period of support for select forwarding
>>>> addresses based on how the ML situation is to be dealt with.
>>>>> Does the size of groups (3) and (4) bother you if these are continued
for a long time?
>>>>> (5) There are identifiable and relatively large numbers of individuals
with OOo in other systems where we think it would be good to continue for some time measured
in months. Rob has numbers in the 40,000 or 80,000 range.
>>>>> This would be phased out or terminated.
>>>>> Does the initial size of (5) bother you?
>>>> No. It just means a flat file storage system won't work.  We'll need to use
a proper
>>>> (non-relational) database, and fortunately postfix supports several of them.

View raw message