incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2011 00:05:11 GMT
>From: Dave Fisher <>
>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

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 to
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