Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead?
Niclas On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer > <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > Roman, > > I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead > horse for the past week- what > > on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality? > > Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available to > the board I'm border line ok with that. > What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that > there could be other folks having access > to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board. > That's a big, huge problem. > > > Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file, > which means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose > mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email > providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being > DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce > mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending domain. > > That is also a good point. > > > All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are > simply not. > > We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than > dictatorial. > > Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an > alias for an officer > appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds up on > that > and may provide an even better solution. > > Thanks, > Roman. > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
