Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Broken GPG signatures (was: Change in mailing list configuration)
On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 12:06:13PM +0100, Jorge Sanz via Discuss wrote: > On 2024-02-01 7:00, Sandro Santilli via Discuss wrote: > > > The GPG issue is related to how the MUA searches for a public key > > associated with the From address, which is always an @osgeo.org address > > for messages coming to this mailing list. > > I should have not signed an email sent to a mailing list knowing that it > would mess things since the list modifies headers and content. It just makes > no sense. I actually think it makes sense as it's the only real proof that you wrote the body of your email, becuase in no way DKIM or SPF can guarantee the integrity of what you wrote in your MUA. --strk; signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Broken GPG signatures (was: Change in mailing list configuration)
Check the headers if you want to compare. Which headers are DKIM signed ? By whom ? What address is in the From header ? The GPG issue is related to how the MUA searches for a public key associated with the From address, which is always an @osgeo.org address for messages coming to this mailing list. On January 31, 2024 11:09:53 PM GMT+01:00, Javier Jimenez Shaw via Discuss wrote: >Thanks Sandro for caring about this. > >I understand that some people get annoyed if the prefix is removed (not me >personally). That made me compare with google groups: >I am in a google groups mailing list, and the emails "pass" for SPF and >DKIM. This group has a "prefix" added by the mailing list automatically. >What are they doing differently that we cannot? > >About the GPG signature, I do not know. Nobody in my google group uses it. >Maybe Jorge Sanz has some experience. > >Cheers, >Javier > >On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 18:33, Sandro Santilli via Discuss < >discuss@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > >> I thought I'd mention that the GPG signatures in emails sent to this >> list are currently unverifiable due to the email address of the sender >> NOT being in the From field. Example: >> >> From: Jorge Sanz via Discuss >> To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration >> Message-ID: <4edbc588-9e29-4c51-9b25-520c0112a...@osgeo.org> >> >> [-- Begin signature information --] >> Problem signature from: KeyID 91EB9EC08EC1CAD46631BC5893A8CE9CA5942A46 >> created: Tue 30 Jan 2024 11:08:19 AM CET >> Can't verify due to a missing key or certificate >> [-- End signature information --] >> >> I'm adding mailing list owners as I think they should have the last >> word on what the configuration of the list should be. >> >> I for one still think we should re-apply the change that I applied >> on Jan 11th [1] after nobody had anything to say about my proposal >> of Jan 4th [2] >> >> >> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2024-January/040058.html >> [2] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2024-January/040048.html >> >> --strk; >> ___ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> -- Sent from hand-held device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Broken GPG signatures (was: Change in mailing list configuration)
I thought I'd mention that the GPG signatures in emails sent to this list are currently unverifiable due to the email address of the sender NOT being in the From field. Example: From: Jorge Sanz via Discuss To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration Message-ID: <4edbc588-9e29-4c51-9b25-520c0112a...@osgeo.org> [-- Begin signature information --] Problem signature from: KeyID 91EB9EC08EC1CAD46631BC5893A8CE9CA5942A46 created: Tue 30 Jan 2024 11:08:19 AM CET Can't verify due to a missing key or certificate [-- End signature information --] I'm adding mailing list owners as I think they should have the last word on what the configuration of the list should be. I for one still think we should re-apply the change that I applied on Jan 11th [1] after nobody had anything to say about my proposal of Jan 4th [2] [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2024-January/040058.html [2] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2024-January/040048.html --strk; signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Fw: Re: Change in mailing list configuration
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 09:47:43AM -0800, David Bianco via Discuss wrote: > Having [OSGeo-Discuss] in the subject field also helps with *visual* > filtering. > For those of us who have 1 folder for all the listserv they are on (geo and > non-geo). > Or, for emails that get fwd to non-listserv colleagues. I believe MUA filters can also be used to ADD a prefix of your choice ? At least I do know my MUA (Mutt) allows me to _strip_ the prefix (as I'm already organizing emails in folders so I don't want it). --strk; signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Email filtering (was: Change in mailing list configuration)
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 11:10:13AM +0100, Christian Willmes wrote: > you are messing with my filter configuration and I dislike this (very much). Would you consider sharing detail of your filter software so that someone might help you with converting it to use email headers ? Email coming from this list have the following headers that may be used by filters: X-BeenThere: discuss@lists.osgeo.org List-Id: OSGeo Discussions --strk; ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing list config change reverted (was: Change in mailing list configuration)
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 10:06:11AM -0500, Daniel Morissette wrote: > On 2024-01-12 08:05, Jeroen Ticheler wrote: > > Hi Sandro and others, > > My suggestion would be to re-instate the old configuration and first > > propose and discuss a possible update. Such discussion and eventual > > update should be announced first before it is applied. The Discuss > > mailing list, as other lists, has always worked well for me too. The > > header [OSGeo-Discuss] is used by many of us to filter email and keep > > things manageable. That can't just be modified on an important list as > > Discuss without broader consent IMHO. > > I second Jeroen's thoughts and suggestion. Ok, if everything worked as I expected, the change is now reverted. Please please please help us shape recomendations for mailing list configuration. Some discussion has been conducted on SAC mailing list, some on other channels, and outcomes have been logged in Trac here: Trac ticket: https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/3011 Worth starting another thread to discuss other options ? Does this list need new owners or are Frank and Arnulf still active ? --strk; signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing list configuration change proposal
As part of a mailing list modernization effort the SysAdmin group has been recently evaluating improvements aimed at reducing email loss due to anti-spam measures and has come up with recommendation that are summarized here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/SAC:Mailing_Lists#Configuring_the_mailing_list In particular the last item was added to avoid tampering content and thus breaking cryptographic signatures made by authors on their emails, which is discussed in depth here: https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/3011 Some mailing lists have already implemented these changes (postgis-devel and sac for sure, I'm not sure which others). This thread is to ask if anyone has objections about changing the configuration of this list too. Notable changes will be: 1. No more [OSGeo-Discuss] prefix in email subjects 2. No more added footer 3. Real sender address in the From field 4. DKIM signed emails will not be considered maliciously tampered \o/ For filtering the emails or finding mailing list address to change user preferences you will be able to use the email headers. Many mail user agents should be able to figure this out by themselves, others might need manual configuration. Just as an example, my mail configuration for the PostGIS Developers looks like this (procmail recipe): :0 * ^List-ID:.*postgis-devel.lists.osgeo.org * !^X-List-Administrivia: yes .postgis-devel/ --strk; ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:08:08PM +0100, Sandro Santilli via Discuss wrote: > see if they are able to create a new thread by email, for example. Answering myself I was able to create new threads by email, just writing to @discourse.osgeo.org --strk; ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:14:24AM -0500, Anna Petrášová wrote: > Thank you, that's really helpful to know. I wonder if this "mailing list" > behavior could be set as a default for the migrated users. I also wonder if the "mailing list behaviour" is good enough, but this we can tell by testing it, so I suggest all users interested in such a migration to test the current "categories" (equivalent of "mailing list" in Discourse terms) and see if they are able to create a new thread by email, for example. --strk; ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 04:16:03PM +, Cannata Massimiliano via Discuss wrote: > it is a factual observation that there has been a sensible decline in the > engagement of people in OSGeo... > Not in the conferences presences but in the remote collaboration and > development... This is a very interesting topic and I've been recently advocating opening up access to some infrastructure related git repositories with the specific aim of giving remote collaboration and development more chances (you cannot collaborate in a private repository for sure) --strk; ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration
On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 12:46:24PM +0100, Markus Neteler via Discuss wrote: > > With an upgrade from mailman-2 to mailman-3 we could also have a > searchable archive. > See for example > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/ > which looks much more modern than mailman-2 on OSGeo. Unfortunately nobody stepped up to do that. Someone (in Matrix chat!) mentioned he would look at it but never announced any start of work on the SAC mailing list, nor in the SAC chat room. Any proposal remains theoretical until someone takes on the effort of making it real. The corresponding trac ticket is here: - https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/3028 Personally I'd be very happy to see this upgrade coming, but last I checked migration of archives was reported to not be "smooth" (existing mails would not have the same URLs when migrating) so more decisions are to be made (or someone needs to be bold enough to just do it and see what happens, which is what was done with Discourse) --strk; ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration
On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 09:56:47AM +0100, Jorge Sanz via Discuss wrote:
> Hi Vicky, allVicky, can you please confirm ...
Just to point out one (only one) of the problems I mentioned in my
previous email about using email over other systems: the mail from
Jorge above arrived to me (and all other subscribers) with a
multipart/mixed Content-Type header. The mixed content was:
1. A multipart/alternative content (created by Jorge Mail User Agent, I guess)
2. A text/plain signature (this was added by Mailman)
The content created by Jorge's MUA (multipart/alternative) had 2
alternatively formatted emails:
1.1. Formatted as text/plain, quoted, utf-8, 10K
1.2. Formatted as text/html, quoted, utf-8, 24K
My mail software is configured to prefer the text/plain flavor, in
these cases, so that's how I read the email. BUT the email is
formatted in an horrible way (to my taste?): the mail body is a single
line with 5178 characters, according to wl(1):
1 803 5178
The HTML version is somewhat more readbable but a question arises:
should Mailman "clean up" the mails received before bouncing them
to all subscribers ? But the bigger question is: WHO (among the
OSGeo members) would be partecipating in such a discussion ? And
what's an effective place to discuss about it ? Also: would picking
a different technology ("Discourse", in this case) facilitate these
choices ?
--strk;
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mailing lists to discourse migration
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 09:52:35AM +1100, Bruce Bannerman via Discuss wrote:
>Apart from these few emails telling me that a move to something called
>Discourse is happening, I have not seen any discussion on our lists
>explaining the pros and cons of such a move.
>I find this lack of community engagement on this issue to be troubling.
>This does not seem to be a very open source community way of making such a
>significant move.
I feel the same and ask every OSGeo member with responsibility over
infrastructure to use this mailing list more as this is the "place"
with the most foundation members.
The introduction of so many new/different communication channels
resulted in this fragmentation leaving people with this feeling
of being excluded, which is to be avoided.
>Personally, what we have now has been working nicely for me for close on
>20 years.
Same for me. This is something new generations probably consider like
a reason to change (20 years, you oldies!) but I really think email is
still the most open and available and configuratble communication channel
for everyone. I'm 100% sure blind people can read and write email just
fine, and I know first person that I can read and write email even from a
place where internet connection quality is poor, and from machines
which are not very powerful, and I think this is very important if we
want to be inclusive.
>The lists have been very quiet for quite a while now, but that is a
>community engagement issue. It is not something that technology will
>magically fix.
This is only partially true: I've seen a lot of people who are
being very partecipative BUT do not interact on the mailing lists,
even people having responsibilty on the OSGeo infrastructure have been
expressing a form of dislike for mailing lists, for reasons we cannot
pretend not to see.
I for one only very recently finally got back to manage my own email
and I'm seeing again the problems associated with doing so. This does
not mean the same problems do not exist with other systems, but we
should try to understand the needs of our user base and try to help
with providing solutions.
The above said: I'm also disappointed by not seeing partecipation in
the effort which is required to setup a new service (Discourse) from
the very people who loudly asked for it. Let's all please remember
that infrastructures need to be maintained so please don't ask what
OSGeo can do for you ("I want service X") but rather ask what you can
do for OSGeo ("I want to help maintaining service X").
Thank you for reading so far (short messages are also a kind of
technology some prefer to avoid long messages like mine ;)
--strk;
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] PostGIS-3.3.4 released
PostGIS 3.3.4 was just released. Details and download links can be found at: http://postgis.net/2023/07/PostGIS-3.3.4-Patch-Release/ Thanks, The PostGIS Development Team ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo AUTH compare to OSM
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 08:31:29AM +1100, Brad Hards via Discuss wrote: > Can you explain what you see as the organisational link between OSM and > OSGeo? > > I understand why you want to avoid FB for OSM, but not what you think OSGeo > (including the SAC) should do about it. One thing OSGeo could do is allow every OSGeo UserID to login via OpenID to services accepting that (like OSM). A 6-years old ticket to request such functionality is already in place: https://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1824 --strk; ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Mantra request
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 09:51:04AM +0100, Evrard Arthur via Discuss wrote: >Hello everyone, > >I would like to share a new QGIS plugin but I'm blocked at the "get >mantra" step... > >Can anyone give me some hint ? (email send yesterday to >mantra-requ...@osgeo.org but no respond yet). Hi Evrard, this would have probably been better asked on qgis developers mailing list, anyway you should have received the mantra by now (check your spam folder if you didn't). --strk; ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
