There’s a very, very small chance I’ll ever remember to visit a website to find out about what are essentially emails that could have been sent to me. I have a regular habit of reading email nearly every day, but developing new habits is unlikely to stick.
> On Oct 14, 2024, at 14:50, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > 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. >> >
