incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org e-mail addresses
Date Wed, 02 Nov 2011 00:37:51 GMT
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