Maybe we just need to start contributing to PonyMail to improve the UI to eliminate actually needing the email delivered to our accounts.
I am only 1/4 serious about this. There has to be a better solution. Ralph > On Oct 14, 2024, at 10:25 AM, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: > > I didn’t get the original email in this thread once again, so I think I’d > support trying somewhere else to host discussions. Besides archiving those > messages into a mailing list, it would be great if the solution provided > allowed for email interactivity (e.g., you can reply to the notification of a > message and it’s added to the thread appropriately; this is how GitHub > notification emails typically work). > >> On Oct 10, 2024, at 05:40, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I am generally open to such experiments. I would start with the easiest >> parts, such as users@, and see where it goes. >> >> I would advise against mirroring it to users@ behind the scenes, as it may >> cause privacy problems (we need user consensus to mirror it). When a user >> uses GitHub, they know what to expect. >> >> As for Discourse, many use that now, but I find it very overwhelming and >> stressful. I prefer the clean Github discussions approach. >> >> I haven't checked against ASF policies but feel positive about this move for >> the arguments you have given >> >> Kind regards >> Christian >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024, at 10:58, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: >>> *Abstract:* Modern email system security measures make it practically >>> impossible for mailing lists to work – many subscribers don't get all >>> emails. This not only hinders communication, but blocks an inclusive >>> one. *Shall >>> we, as Logging Services, experiment with alternatives?* >>> >>> *Motivation #1: mailing lists technically don't work* >>> >>> Several widely-used email providers (GMail, Yahoo, iCloud, etc.) have in >>> the last couple of years enabled new measures (DMARC, SPF, DKIM, etc.) to >>> verify the authenticity of emails. In short, these measures enrich email >>> content with checksums and signatures capturing its authenticity. When a >>> mailing list system (e.g., ezmlm, mailman) receives such an email, it >>> performs several changes on its content (adds information about the mailing >>> list, etc.), and delivers it to all subscribers. When the mail server of a >>> subscriber receives such tampered mail, and if that mail server happens to >>> have earlier shared authenticity checks enabled, it discards the email, or >>> at best, marks it as spam. >>> >>> Ralph, Matt, Piotr stated many times that they don't receive all emails. >>> Ralph actually stated many ASF mailing list emails end up in his spam >>> box >>> <https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CBX4TSBQ8/p1728032221080189?thread_ts=1727958807.348019&cid=CBX4TSBQ8>. >>> Recently we witnessed even Brian Proffitt (VP, Marketing & Publicity) >>> suffer >>> from the same problem >>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/yfmrpjslcbo5jmsqqpvtok1o6lht11rb>. >>> INFRA >>> is crawling with related tickets: INFRA-24574 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24574>, INFRA-24790 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24790>, INFRA-24845 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24845>, INFRA-24850 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24850>, INFRA-24872 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-24872>, INFRA-25947 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-25947>, INFRA-26171 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-26171> – there are dozens >>> more. >>> >>> This technical difficulty is not only known to us. AFAIK, this is one of >>> the main reasons PSF (Python Software Foundation) decided to switch from >>> mailing lists to Discourse. Mailman documents several DMARC mitigations >>> <https://docs.mailman3.org/projects/mailman/en/latest/src/mailman/handlers/docs/dmarc-mitigations.html>, >>> but I think these are workarounds/hacks rather than well-established >>> solutions. >>> >>> *Motivation #2: ezmlm is dead* >>> >>> ezmlm, the mailing list software ASF uses, is dead – it is neither >>> developed, nor maintained anymore. (Last official release was in 1997, >>> there >>> is the `ezmlm-idx` add-on, which later on became a successor >>> <https://untroubled.org/ezmlm/faq/What-is-the-difference-between-ezmlm-and-ezmlm_002didx_003f.html>, >>> which last produced a release in 2014, and so on. Long, dead story.) >>> INFRA >>> maintains a very big, sophisticated set of Perl rules for running ASF >>> ezmlm >>> instances. If you look closely at the INFRA tickets I cited above, some >>> suggest INFRA to fork ezmlm and fix some long standing bugs, etc. We can >>> discuss the possibility of migrating from ezmlm to mailman (yet another >>> mailing list software, but one that is still maintained), whether such a >>> migration should be practiced ASF-wide or only for Logging Services, >>> etc. >>> But eventually, we will still be using a mailing list, and as I tried to >>> explain above, IMO, they just don't work good. >>> >>> *Proposal #1: Experimenting with GitHub Discussions* >>> >>> GitHub is our development bread and butter. We use its tickets, PRs, >>> reviews, discussions, CI, security & code quality checks, etc. It works >>> perfectly and components are integrated well, i.e., you can link issues, >>> comments, PRs, CI runs, etc. Users like it too – we all witnessed the >>> sudden increase in user interactions after migrating to GitHub Issues >>> and >>> Discussions. We can configure sections & categories in Discussions >>> <https://docs.github.com/en/discussions/managing-discussions-for-your-community/managing-categories-for-discussions> >>> to make it serve as our main communication medium. It also provides mail >>> notifications and the possibility to respond to them for those who still >>> prefer their email client over a browser. >>> >>> In short, we can quickly configure Discussions, update our support policy >>> page, and start experimenting with it. >>> >>> One can raise the argument that what if Discussions disappear? We can >>> mirror communication there to a mailing list to be on the safe side. Yet, >>> we need to evaluate the necessity of this. >>> >>> *Proposal #2: Experimenting with Discourse* >>> >>> We can get a VM from INFRA and manage our Discourse instance. Though, >>> AFAIC, this will result in a "GitHub Discussions"-like setup with all the >>> integration goodies missing and added server maintenance burden. >>> >>> *F.A.Q.* >>> >>> *What if GitHub Discussions disappear?* >>> >>> In such a case, I presume they will allow us to download the existing >>> archives. In the worst case, we can decide to mirror the communication >>> there to a mailing list. Yet, we need to evaluate the necessity of this. In >>> particular, how big of a problem is this at the experimentation stage? >>> >>> *How will private communication work with GitHub Discussions?* >>> >>> We can create private repositories for internal/private communication. >>> For >>> users/researchers wanting to submit & discuss security issues, they can >>> get >>> in touch with us (either via email to `security@logging` or some other >>> ASF/INFRA mailing list), we can grant them permissions to collaborate >>> privately on a repository security advisory >>> <https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/security-advisories/working-with-repository-security-advisories/about-repository-security-advisories> >>> . >>> >>> *Don't the ASF legals require mailing lists?* >>> >>> I am aware that several ASF policies require mailing list communication, >>> e.g., for voting and such. I first want to establish a consensus among us, >>> and then pitch to the board for exemption as a pilot. >>> >>> *Shouldn't this proposal be practiced ASF-wide?* >>> >>> This will be a very (very very very, actually!) daunting route to pursue. >>> I'd rather start small, solve our problem first (if we can), and then think >>> about widening the scope. >
