incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org e-mail addresses
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2011 01:53:41 GMT


>________________________________
>From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 9:41 PM
>Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org 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.
>
>Thanks.
>
>> 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 apache.org 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 openoffice.org 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.
>
>Regards,
>Dave
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> HTH
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: "orcmid@apache.org" <orcmid@apache.org>; 'Lawrence Rosen' <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 8:37 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org e-mail addresses
>>> 
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> 
>>> Now I am confused you mention 3 different possible mail managers for MX for openoffice.org.
>>> 
>>> (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 openoffice.org is either forwarded according to a database
or bounced.  If there are no or the minimum required by internet protocols mboxes on the
openoffice.org MX.
>>> 
>>> What is the threshold for being incorporated into the ASF's normal ezmlm? If
all of the forwarders were to apache.org 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 <dave2wave@comcast.net>
>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Cc: "orcmid@apache.org" <orcmid@apache.org>; 'Lawrence Rosen' <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 7:47 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org 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 ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> openoffice.org 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 OpenOffice.org 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 openoffice.org 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 openoffice.org. (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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message