Re: [CentOS-docs] Installing CentOS - user feedback

[Thibaut Perrin]

Hi Rich,

Just for 1), when you choose the distro you want, written in white on blue
on top of that you have a phrasing that describes (agreed, it could be
better positioned, but it's there) :
CentOS Linux
=> Consistent, manageable platform that suits a wide variety of
deployments. For some open source communities, it is a solid, predictable
base to build upon.

CentOS Stream
=> Rolling-release distro that tracks just ahead of Red Hat Enterprise
Linux (RHEL) development, positioned as a midstream between Fedora Linux
and RHEL. For anyone interested in participating and collaborating in the
RHEL ecosystem, CentOS Stream is your reliable platform for innovation.

I agree on the missing points, and also the "Documentation" page includes
doc for 7 & 8, even if you're on the 6.10 choice. Which means there's not
even documentation links for 6 while it's still possible to download it ?

On the other points, once you choose x86_64, there should be more guidance
on the mirror page I'd say. You'll find the following ISO files, here is a
list of which you'll find and what usage.
Maybe the mirror parent page could include a readme or a redirect to the
ISO page as well for that matter ?

I think the fewest places the info is stored, the less likely we'll forget
an update when there is one.

Thanks,


On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:04 PM Rich Bowen  wrote:

> A few days ago I got email from a user who was attempting to install
> CentOS. I've included their full message below, but, to summarize, when
> one clicks on the "CentOS Linux" link on the front page of centos.org
> one is given a matrix of choices, and no guidance. On choosing one
> option - say, x84_64 ISO, one is then given another list of options and
> no guidance. Pick one of *those* options and you are yet again given a
> list of options and no guidance.
>
> Now, it could be argued that someone who doesn't know what to choose is
> not our target audience, and I suppose that would be an ok position to
> hold. But wouldn't it be great to lower the bar just a little, and offer
> some guidance as to which links one should click?
>
> I'd like to see several things:
>
> 1) On the front page, where it says "We offer two Linux distros:", there
> would be at least some hint of what this choice entails
>
> 2) On the download page - https://www.centos.org/centos-linux/ - a
> little explanation of what the various options there are.
>
> So far, this is all just edits to centos.org. The next two steps involve
> pushing changes to the mirror network, and I honestly have no idea what
> is involved there.
>
> 3) Adding phrasing to
> http://isoredirect.centos.org/centos/8/isos/x86_64/ that indicates what
> that inscrutable list of links means.
>
> and finally, possibly not even possible:
>
> 4) Add words to http://centos4.zswap.net/8.2.2004/isos/x86_64/ (as a
> random example) that say what the various options mean. This is probably
> not possible, since these are just autoindex generated pages. We could,
> however, offer Apache httpd and nginx configuration recommendations
> which will provide that additional information for sites that chose to
> follow the instructions.
>
> And, really, #1 and #2 are the most important here.
>
> The full message follows:
>
>  >>
> I stumbled on your address on a Centos Faq page. I hope you can give me
> some sort of answer.
> I have been searching for a way to ask a question, but have not located
> a forum. As I am fairly new to Linux generally, I am exploring
> varieties, and Centos surfaced as an interesting option. But, again, I
> have a problem no one else considers worthy of asking or answering: how
> do I choose? Apparently the user in the download directory is supposed
> to know what they are looking for.
> When I followed the link to "download CentOs", I chose a link with
> ".iso" on it. This opened another page, so I picked another likely
> candidate. I went four or five branches deep before I gave up. I have no
> idea why I would want one branch or the other. Should I just leave
> CentOs to the experts?
> I really wish that on the home page there was a specification for "user
> level". Do developers assume that the user is expert, and that someone
> who is not qualified will get exhausted and go away? It seems very
> unkind to make that assumption and not say so. If I am not the intended
> user, please tell me! Otherwise, could someone please explain how to
> choose which version of CentOs to use?
> If you could forward this letter to someone who can take the time to
> answer my question, I will be grateful.
> <<
>
> ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] firewalld configuration for securing SSH

[Thibaut Perrin]

Thanks for the research and modification



On Tue 30 Apr 2019 at 03:55, Kimberlee Integer Model <
kimee.i.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thibaut, I did a little more reading, and according to both
> firewalld.service(5) and firewalld.org the service XML files, can only
> handle source/destination/port, and cannot handle the actions to be
> performed. I will update where possible to use the service files, but
> log/accept limit will still need to be encoded in rich rules.
>
> -- Kimee
>
> On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 20:43 -0400, Kimberlee Integer Model wrote:
> > Ah. I understand now. I was considering roughly the same, but wasn't
> > sure whether that or rich rules was preferable.
> >
> > -- Kimee
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 2019-04-27 at 01:39 +0200, Thibaut Perrin wrote:
> > > No, I think the rules you created might have a better place in a
> > > custom xml file instead of being given to firewall cmd directly :)
> > >
> > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 23:01, Kimberlee Integer Model <
> > > kimee.i.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure I follow, you just think the modified one should be
> > > > called
> > > > "ssh-custom", or you think there shouldn't be a modified service
> > > > file
> > > > at all?
> > > >
> > > > -- Kimee
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 19:46 +0200, Thibaut Perrin wrote:
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > Wouldn't that be a better solution to create a custom xml file
> > > > > to
> > > >
> > > > put
> > > > > in /etc/firewalld and load that "ssh-custom" service instead ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > On 26/04/2019, Kimberlee Integer Model  > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Thank you, I've gone in and made the listed changes changed
> > > > > > firewalld
> > > > > > sections to use services instead of just port numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Kimee
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 2019-04-24 at 17:05 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:13 AM Kimberlee Integer Model
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HI all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1st time contributor here. I was using the guide on
> > > >
> > > > securing
> > > > > > > > SSH,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > noticed that the firewall-cmd snippets for filtering by
> > > > > > > > requests
> > > > > > > > per
> > > > > > > > time seem somewhat outdated. From what I can tell the
> > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > snippets,
> > > > > > > > relay arguments directly down to iptables, and do not
> > > > > > > > cover
> > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > IPv4
> > > > > > > > and v6. (and in fact when attempting to extend to v6 the
> > > > > > > > firewall
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > fail to reload). I came up with an "all firewall-cmd"
> > > >
> > > > solution
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > I'd like to share.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It boils down to using rich rules in firewalld instead of
> > > > > > > > direct
> > > > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > > for iptables. The code snippets in section 6 of <
> > > > > > > > https://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH>
> > > >
> > > > would be
> > > > > > > > changed to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > firewall-cmd --permanent --add-rich-rule='rule port
> > > >
> > > > port="22"
> > > > > > > > protocol="tcp" accept limit value="4/m"'
> > > > > > > > firewall-cmd --permanent --remove-service ssh
> > > > &g

Re: [CentOS-docs] firewalld configuration for securing SSH

[Thibaut Perrin]

No, I think the rules you created might have a better place in a custom xml
file instead of being given to firewall cmd directly :)

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 23:01, Kimberlee Integer Model <
kimee.i.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure I follow, you just think the modified one should be called
> "ssh-custom", or you think there shouldn't be a modified service file
> at all?
>
> -- Kimee
>
> On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 19:46 +0200, Thibaut Perrin wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Wouldn't that be a better solution to create a custom xml file to put
> > in /etc/firewalld and load that "ssh-custom" service instead ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On 26/04/2019, Kimberlee Integer Model 
> > wrote:
> > > Thank you, I've gone in and made the listed changes changed
> > > firewalld
> > > sections to use services instead of just port numbers.
> > >
> > > -- Kimee
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2019-04-24 at 17:05 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:13 AM Kimberlee Integer Model
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > HI all,
> > > > >
> > > > > 1st time contributor here. I was using the guide on securing
> > > > > SSH,
> > > > > and
> > > > > noticed that the firewall-cmd snippets for filtering by
> > > > > requests
> > > > > per
> > > > > time seem somewhat outdated. From what I can tell the given
> > > > > snippets,
> > > > > relay arguments directly down to iptables, and do not cover
> > > > > both
> > > > > IPv4
> > > > > and v6. (and in fact when attempting to extend to v6 the
> > > > > firewall
> > > > > would
> > > > > fail to reload). I came up with an "all firewall-cmd" solution
> > > > > which
> > > > > I'd like to share.
> > > > >
> > > > > It boils down to using rich rules in firewalld instead of
> > > > > direct
> > > > > rules
> > > > > for iptables. The code snippets in section 6 of <
> > > > > https://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH>;; would be
> > > > > changed to
> > > > >
> > > > > firewall-cmd --permanent --add-rich-rule='rule port port="22"
> > > > > protocol="tcp" accept limit value="4/m"'
> > > > > firewall-cmd --permanent --remove-service ssh
> > > > > firewall-cmd --permanent --remove-port 22/tcp
> > > > > firewall-cmd --reload
> > > > >
> > > > > newly minted wiki username is "KimeeModel".
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Kimee
> > > >
> > > > You should be able to edit that page. Let us know if you find any
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > Akemi
> > > > ___
> > > > CentOS-docs mailing list
> > > > CentOS-docs@centos.org
> > > > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
> > >
> > > ___
> > > CentOS-docs mailing list
> > > CentOS-docs@centos.org
> > > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > CentOS-docs mailing list
> > CentOS-docs@centos.org
> > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
> ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] firewalld configuration for securing SSH

[Thibaut Perrin]

Hi there,

Wouldn't that be a better solution to create a custom xml file to put
in /etc/firewalld and load that "ssh-custom" service instead ?

Thanks

On 26/04/2019, Kimberlee Integer Model  wrote:
> Thank you, I've gone in and made the listed changes changed firewalld
> sections to use services instead of just port numbers.
>
> -- Kimee
>
>
> On Wed, 2019-04-24 at 17:05 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:13 AM Kimberlee Integer Model
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > HI all,
>> >
>> > 1st time contributor here. I was using the guide on securing SSH,
>> > and
>> > noticed that the firewall-cmd snippets for filtering by requests
>> > per
>> > time seem somewhat outdated. From what I can tell the given
>> > snippets,
>> > relay arguments directly down to iptables, and do not cover both
>> > IPv4
>> > and v6. (and in fact when attempting to extend to v6 the firewall
>> > would
>> > fail to reload). I came up with an "all firewall-cmd" solution
>> > which
>> > I'd like to share.
>> >
>> > It boils down to using rich rules in firewalld instead of direct
>> > rules
>> > for iptables. The code snippets in section 6 of <
>> > https://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH>; would be
>> > changed to
>> >
>> > firewall-cmd --permanent --add-rich-rule='rule port port="22"
>> > protocol="tcp" accept limit value="4/m"'
>> > firewall-cmd --permanent --remove-service ssh
>> > firewall-cmd --permanent --remove-port 22/tcp
>> > firewall-cmd --reload
>> >
>> > newly minted wiki username is "KimeeModel".
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Kimee
>>
>> You should be able to edit that page. Let us know if you find any
>> problem.
>>
>> Akemi
>> ___
>> CentOS-docs mailing list
>> CentOS-docs@centos.org
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
> ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] wiki.centos.org .. what's next ?

[Thibaut Perrin]

Hello Fabien,

First, thank you for even trying for what seems to be an impossible task :(

Quick points :
- if it was decided not to continue, what would happen to the current wiki
? Dismantled or would it remain as read-only for documentation purpose ?
- What about Sphinx  ? seems to be
frequentely used nowadays
- As you mentioned, a solution of the type of github with pull requests for
documentation updates might be a solution here.

There is a wiki feature  on
Github. I don't know to which extend it would fit the needs of the project.

Hope this helps,

Thibaut


On 11 December 2017 at 10:00, Fabian Arrotin  wrote:

> it's all in the title : what's next for wiki.centos.org ?
>
> As a reminder, current wiki.centos.org instance is powered by moinmoin
> (https://moinmo.in/) but quite an old version (moin-1.5.8-3.el6.noarch)
>
> Recently I had a quick look at trying to update/upgrade that version to
> something newer/supported, but it's a nightmare : the data conversion
> just kill the target server (oom) and no way to know why. When trying to
> get help from moin people in their irc server, I was answered that such
> old version wasn't supported, and that those upgrade scripts themselves
> aren't supported either, so nobody would help finding why they'd be
> buggy without having access to the full data.
>
> Of course exposing the whole wiki instance (including user/pass) isn't
> an option, so except if somebody has really a clue about what can go
> wrong with the update script from 1.5 to 1.6 (and then it has to be done
> for each major.minor upgrade, so all that in a chained operation), the
> migration will be impossible.
>
> That's why I'd like to discuss a possibility to move wiki to something
> else, and that's even why we should discuss the need for a wiki itself.
>
> If we want to continue to have community written/maintained content,
> should be still use a wiki or something else ? Moin was selected ~10y
> ago for its simplicity and online editing, but in 2017, most people (dev
> and ops) are probably using other workflows, like git/pull-requests/etc.
>
> So what about exploring other possibilities ?
>
> I don't have a real proposal (even if mkdocs.org , simple solution with
> Markdown, combined with git would be perfect for me) but just wanted to
> start a dedicated thread so that we can think about the future of
> wiki.centos.org
>
> Opinions ? Proposals ? anything else ? Fee free to comment :-)
>
>
> --
> Fabian Arrotin
> The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org
> gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
>
>
> ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
>
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Draft review request (php7 on CentOS) [Was: Documentation proposal]

[Thibaut Perrin]

Article changed :)

On 9 November 2017 at 11:03, Remi Collet <fed...@famillecollet.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Le 09/11/2017 à 10:22, Thibaut Perrin a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> >
> > What I could do would be to add a simple note : "This is a basic
> > configuration to confirm your php-fpm works properly. Depending on your
> use
> > case, you may need to tune your apache / php settings. Please read this
> > article
> > <https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2017/10/25/php-configuration-tips/>
> for
> > more details"
> >
> > What do you think ?
>
> Sounds good
>
> Remi
> ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Draft review request (php7 on CentOS) [Was: Documentation proposal]

[Thibaut Perrin]

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback.

What I could do would be to add a simple note : "This is a basic
configuration to confirm your php-fpm works properly. Depending on your use
case, you may need to tune your apache / php settings. Please read this
article
 for
more details"

What do you think ?

On 9 November 2017 at 06:32, Remi Collet  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Le 03/11/2017 à 17:38, Akemi Yagi a écrit :
> > ​It's been a week, so I set up a place for you in HowTo:
> >
> > ​https://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/php7
>
> Thanks for having worked on this
>
> And sorry for very late comment (I have missed this discussion)
>
> The solution described in this howto also works on CentOS 6 using the
> backported mod_proxy_fcgi available in EPEL.
>
> BTW, the ProxyPass way have some caveats, especially as it is evaluated
> early in the request, so before redirect, index, right, htaccess... and
> thus, can raise some surprising behaviorts
>
> So I usually recommends the SetHandler way, as httpd 2.4 in base CentOS
> 7 repository have all the backports needed to use it, and will work
> closely of mod_php.
>
> On the same time I was working on a similar article (mostly updating and
> merging all the old blog articles from my blog)
>
> The result have been recently published
> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2017/10/25/php-configuration-tips/
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Remi
> ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Draft review request (php7 on CentOS) [Was: Documentation proposal]

[Thibaut Perrin]

Hi all,

How long should we wait to decide if we should publish it elsewhere ?

Thanks,

Thibaut

On 27 October 2017 at 16:05, [-=X.L.O.R.D=-] <xlord...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Akemi,
>
> Thank for info, seems many developer are using “centos-release-scl” these
> days, that makes life easier, however, it is little to governance the
> “software source collection” if they are right or wrong.
>
> Anyway it is nice to know and thank you again!
>
>
>
> Xlord
>
>
>
> *From:* CentOS-docs [mailto:centos-docs-boun...@centos.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Akemi Yagi
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 9:34 PM
> *To:* Mail list for wiki articles <centos-docs@centos.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CentOS-docs] Draft review request (php7 on CentOS) [Was:
> Documentation proposal]
>
>
>
> ​A wiki article about how to use php7.x on CentOS 7 has been written by 
> ​Thibaut
> Perrin. His draft can be found in the Scratch section of:
>
>
> https://wiki.centos.org/ThibautPerrin
>
> ​Feedback welcome.
>
> Akemi​
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Thibaut Perrin <thibaut.per...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> No problem, everyone has a life, I understand that ;)
>
>
>
> I've put the draft of the article in the Scratch section, let me know what
> you think.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Thibaut
>
>
>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> ThibautPerrin here, I would like to propose a How-To to use php7.x on
> >>> CentOS 7, using the SCL, as most of the articles you can find on the
> web
> >>> offer to do this using third party repositories, which might not be
> the most
> >>> appropriate thing to do :)
> >>>
> >>> The location would probably be in the How-Tos I'm guessing, unless
> >>> somebody has a better location to offer ?
> >>>
> >>> I already wrote the document, and I'd be happy to submit it for review
> /
> >>> discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Thibaut
>
>
>
> ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
>
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Documentation proposal

[Thibaut Perrin]

Hi,

No problem, everyone has a life, I understand that ;)

I've put the draft of the article in the Scratch section, let me know what
you think.

Thanks,

Thibaut

On 25 October 2017 at 22:57, Alan Bartlett <a...@elrepo.org> wrote:

> On 25 October 2017 at 08:08, Thibaut Perrin <thibaut.per...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > That would be perfect :)
> >
> > On 25 October 2017 at 02:34, Akemi Yagi <amy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Thibaut Perrin <
> thibaut.per...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> ThibautPerrin here, I would like to propose a How-To to use php7.x on
> >>> CentOS 7, using the SCL, as most of the articles you can find on the
> web
> >>> offer to do this using third party repositories, which might not be
> the most
> >>> appropriate thing to do :)
> >>>
> >>> The location would probably be in the How-Tos I'm guessing, unless
> >>> somebody has a better location to offer ?
> >>>
> >>> I already wrote the document, and I'd be happy to submit it for review
> /
> >>> discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Thibaut
> >>
> >>
> >> How would you like to submit your writing for discussion? We can set up
> a
> >> home page for you to place your draft if that works best for you.
> >>
> >> Akemi
> >>
> >>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> I have just picked this up this request and have now initialised a
> C-Wiki home page for you. [1]  Please make use of the "Scratch Area"
> for you draft document and then let the list know when it is ready for
> review.
>
> Alan.
>
> [1] https://wiki.centos.org/ThibautPerrin
> ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Re: [CentOS-docs] Documentation proposal

[Thibaut Perrin]

That would be perfect :)

On 25 October 2017 at 02:34, Akemi Yagi <amy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Thibaut Perrin <thibaut.per...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> ThibautPerrin here, I would like to propose a How-To to use php7.x on
>> CentOS 7, using the SCL, as most of the articles you can find on the web
>> offer to do this using third party repositories, which might not be the
>> most appropriate thing to do :)
>>
>> The location would probably be in the How-Tos I'm guessing, unless
>> somebody has a better location to offer ?
>>
>> I already wrote the document, and I'd be happy to submit it for review /
>> discussion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Thibaut
>>
>
> ​How would you like to submit your writing for discussion? We can set up a
> home page for you to place your draft if that works best for you.
>
> Akemi​
>
>
> ___
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
>
>
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs