On 11/03/16 18:25, Herb Sutter wrote: > +Detlef,Jeremy for lists.isocpp.org migration+upgrade planning > > BTW, I think Boost and WG21 reflectors (lists.isocpp.org) are encountering > identical problems. And lots of other lists as well :-(
> Let me sanity-check as this will help us both get this right… My > understanding is that there are two distinct issues: > > 1. Moving from Indiana: Boost and WG21 reflectors have been hosted at > Indiana, and our host has left so we need to move them. For Boost, I > understand you is looking at moving to Ciere; that’s up to you of course. For > WG21, we are moving lists.isocpp.org to the same webhost as the rest of > isocpp.org; our plan is to do that migration over the U.S. Thanksgiving > holiday, and Jeremy (who runs isocpp.org) is in communication with DongInn > (Indiana IT), to complete this. This is my understanding as well. > 2. Upgrading to Mailman (2.1.18 or later): IIUC Boost and WG21 reflectors are > using an older version of Mailman and this problem would be resolved with a > newer version. See https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC where IIUC the correct > option we would use is “munge” as encouraged in DMARC Support in Mailman > <http://www.spamresource.com/2016/09/dmarc-support-in-mailman.html> – does > that match your understanding? For WG21, the plan is that after we finish the > #1 move and are stable, we’ll look at upgrading Mailman to 2.1.18 or later, > hopefully before the end of the year, and turn on the “munge” option. Generally yes. But there are two open issues with this: - Is the "munge" option compatible with our (WG21) use of "Reply-To:"? I hope to get a test list once the WG21 reflectors were moved so I can check this. - Is the munge option in the same form (at least with the same result) available in Mailman 3? I assume so, but haven't checked yet. For background on Mailman 3: <https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC>: "This is what we propose for Mailman 3. Any of this could change." <https://wiki.list.org/Mailman3>: "Mailman 3 is architected and released quite differently than Mailman 2.1." "While it is possible to upgrade existing Mailman 2.1 lists to run on Mailman 3, we are not yet officially sanctioning it. The plan is to officially support upgrades with Mailman 3.1..." I'm sure we have to switch Mailman 3 at some time, as security updates for 2.1 might not be available anymore, but I don't want to switch to Mailman 3 now. And I don't want to change the user experience again... Detlef > > From: boost-steering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:boost-steering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Niall Douglas > Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 2:30 AM > To: Boost Steering Committee <boost-steering@googlegroups.com> > Cc: m...@jsharpe.net > Subject: Re: [boost-steering] Fwd: DMARC and mailman > > > > The failure to fix this is beginning to interfere with library peer reviews, > never mind the operation of boost-dev in general. Much of the email received > from boost-dev lands in Spam nowadays from DKIM enforced email addresses. We > also are failing to rewrite SPF correctly. > > > > I attach below the full headers from a mail received by Antony Polukhin who > is review managing Boost.Process right now. His job is impeded if reviews by > Boost members keep landing in Spam. > > > > Can I ask boost-steering to please get on this already and get this fixed? > > > > Niall -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Boost Steering Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to boost-steering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
