Hi Joe, Thanks for the clarity.
On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > ezmlm and qmail are married packages. > qmail is an MTA and ezmlm is a qmail app > for managing mailing lists. Thanks. > Given the surprises I've seen here by folks > getting used to the whole ezmlm feature-set, > I'm confident that Oracle is using something > > other than that for ooo. They are using SYMPA. They allow html. They allow bad SPF. > > Postfix is what I'd recommend we use for dealing > with the forwarding needs, but postfix isn't compatible > with ezmlm so we'd need to run that on a separate > host. > > What I'm trying to point out for you here is that > the mail server software I'd recommend for forwarding handling > and the software I'd prefer using for ML's are incompatible > with each other, and I'm not going to run some crazy > scheme to try and divvy up the domain between two > separate mail servers. > > Pick your poison in other words, either the focus is > on ML's, in which case forwarding addresses only get > support limited to a select few (committers say). > Otherwise the focus is on forwarding addresses, in which > case someone other than infra will be responsible for > the upkeep of the mailing list infra for ooo. Are the following two configurations accurate statements of what you would support. Configuration A - ezmlm/qmail on the usual ASF MTA 330 OOo MLs w/o subscribers forward to project MLs. <100 committers/PPMC members with OOo forwards to either an external email or their apache forwarder. Just the apache address? Configuration B - postfix on a jail maintained by the project 330 OOo MLs w/o subscribers forward to project MLs. <100 committers/PPMC members with OOo forwards to either an external email or their apache forwarder. >20,000 BZ OOo forwarders to external emails. Volunteers for postfix admin. I personally prefer Configuration A. Let's see if we get Consensus, or if we need a vote. We don't need to hurry the MTA migration as much as other OOo services. Regards, Dave > > > HTH > > > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Dave Fisher <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; 'Lawrence Rosen' >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 8:37 PM >> Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org e-mail addresses >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; 'Lawrence Rosen' >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> 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 [email protected]? >>>> >>>> (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. >> >> >>
