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 16:49:11 GMT
Yes, I'll take my badge off and put my pistol in the safe:


 1 (below). Your response fits the consensus I am seeing develop.  Nothing fancy, bounce them,
but some kind of catcher is needed to send something intelligible back other than no-such-address.

 2 (below). I think killing all myname@ apart with limited forwardings for
committers it would be a horrible blunder of Klingon caliber: "All but committers are unworthy
worms."  It should make great slashdot reading.  Not to mention the glee on the faces of those
in the Apache AOOo Waiting To Fail (WTF) fan club.
Please do not collapse this system with the use of Apache IDs and myID@ addresses,
even though there is a similarity in function.  This is more like what happens when people
register themselves to use the wiki or a forum or a mailing list, etc.  The complication is
that when folks registered on the OO.o site, they also got a forwardable e-mail address that
went with that ID.  And these ID/e-mail combinations are ubiquitous in the http:// *
ecosystem.  It is a kind of a fledgling, limited-reach OpenID/single-sign-on system.

 - Dennis

I also have an addition to my list of where there are breakages with these e-mail (not list)
addresses: Some number of iCLAs have e-mail addresses as the e-mail of record.
 That won't interfere too badly with those who have already been established as committers
(at AOOo at least) but it is another bullet item for my original list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Curcuru [] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 05:05
Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses

I'll butt in with my (non-binding) suggestions.

On 11/2/2011 12:01 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> where I am confused is the focus on Mailing-List forwarding rather than E-mail
> forwarding.  I can't tell what the intended behaviors are.
> Let's get clear:
>   1. If someone posts to one of the old e-mail list addresses (e.g.,
>, what is intended to happen?  What is the observed
> behavior?  How does this extend to use
> of -subscribe, -unsubscribe, -help, -owner (or their OO.o counterparts), etc.
> ?

After the final migration, they all bounce.  By then we should have nice 
friendly pages - easily searchable for - that tell past 
product version users which relevant Apache list to use.  And we'll have 
sent several "hey, this list is going away" notes to the old list.

>   2. (a) If someone sends an e-mail to an existing account/e-mail address
> (e.g.,, what is intended to happen?  What does the
> individual that it current forwards to get to know or do about it?  The person
> sending the e-mail?  If the forwarding bounces, what will happen?
>      (b) If the account is closed/deleted, what are the 2(a) answers.

After the final migration, if they're not a committer, they bounce. 
Period.  We are not in the business of providing services to non-committers.

If they're a committer, then it's up to the PPMC to decide if 1) you 
want to, and 2) you will support some software to make committer 
forwarders work somehow.

Apache projects use services to do their work.  I certainly 
expect - as such a hugely accessed service - that web access to will remain, along with a number of it's key subdomains. 
  But we really need to start thinking like the new Apache project that 
we're running, and not like some strange continuation of the past Oracle 
project that is now... unsupported.

- Shane

>   - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher []
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 20:35
> To:
> Cc:; 'Joe Schaefer'
> Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> 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.
> Joe and I discussed doing it w/o subscriber lists. As a pure forwarder that's
> choice one and two.
>> I hope I misunderstand the common understanding about that.
> You do. See my other reply.
> [ ... ]

View raw message