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 00:47:15 GMT
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.

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

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.


>From: Dave Fisher <>
>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.
>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 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
>>> (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.
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message