incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:48:32 GMT

On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:20 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> <snip>
>> 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?
>> 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.
>> I personally prefer Configuration A.
>> Let's see if we get Consensus, or if we need a vote.
> -1
> What the helll do you think you are doing, Dave?
> We had a discussion on the mailing lists already, for over a week.  i
> made a detailed proposal. I invited counter-proposals.  My proposal
> received lazy consensus.  I, Kay and others have been busy working on
> the wiki and the mailing lists executing that proposal.  We're far
> into it already.  We've sent out dozens of notes, translated it into
> Finnish, German, Serbian, etc.    And now you're going to make a
> counter-proposal and ask for a vote on it?

This supplements what you guys are doing. The lists could exist in case someone a year from
now sends an email. It then gets routed to the project list that replaces it.

If the project doesn't want this then fine. The technical issue about where the migrated OOo
MTA is and works is the main takeaway from my discussion with Joe who is the person who will
make it so. If you don' recognize that part then fine. I guess I am wasting my time.

> Before you do this, please consider what this does for other project
> volunteers who follow the rules, make proposals, get consensus and
> invest their time into executing on their proposals.
> In any case, to put technical objections behind my veto, along with
> the willingness to implement a alternative solution (something I've
> already been doing for two weeks), note that many (even most) of the
> legacy lists are overrun by spam.  The signal to noise ratio is very
> low.  If we forward the traffic to those lists to Apache lists then we
> are also overrun with spam.  But because we would be combining
> multiple legacy lists into a single Apache list, say ooo-dev, then we
> would be receiving all the spam from many lists concentrated into a
> single list.  This is very bad, and was something we discussed
> previously and influenced my recommendation to do only an opt-in
> migration of legacy list members, to avoid bringing over the spammers.
> Note also that spammers that sign up for Apache lists can easily be
> controlled by moderators.  But if we're automatically forwarding
> legacy list traffic we have a lot less control.
> One thing that might be useful is to forward all existing list
> addresses to a single bot that would respond with an email that states
> the lists have migrated to Apache and gives the new list addresses or
> a link to a web page containing the same.  That would make it easy for
> any users to migrate while leaving the spammers behind.

That works.

The main part of my cases stand as a technical requirement that APache Infrastructure can
actually do. The other complicated ideas that you and Dennis discuss are hypothetical.

I'm done with AOOo(i) for today as work calls and Apachecon is next week.


> Regards,
> -Rob

View raw message