Re: mail/mailman v3?

[George Mitchell]

On 2020-04-30 21:31, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> [...]
> PS I've not the foggiest what Tauthon is , so searched
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Tauthon=Go=1
>   The page "Tauthon" does not exist.
>   cd /usr/ports ; cd */*tauthon* # */*tauthon*: No match.
>   https://forums.freebsd.org/tags/tauthon/-
> [...]

I hadn't heard about it until this instant, but at a wild guess,
tau-thon would be the successor to pi-thon?  (... groan ...)
-- George



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Julian H. Stacey]

Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 29.04.20 um 17:00 schrieb Julian H. Stacey:
> > Greg Veldman wrote ports@:
> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:02:14PM -0700, Chris wrote:
> >>> It also wouldn't be that difficult to simply modify mailman(2)
> >>> to adopt the py3.x language changes.
> >>
> >> To simply make it work, perhaps not.  To make it work well and
> >> be reliable... might be more difficult than you think.  A large
> >> chunk of what a mail handler of any variety does is text
> >> processing, and there are significant differences in that area
> >> in Python2 vs Python3.  E.g. ASCII vs Unicode.  You'd likely
> >> be opening a Pandora's box of corner cases and workarounds when
> >> $STUPIDLY_FORMATTED_MAIL_MESSAGE_OF_THE_HOUR comes through.
> >>
> >> The effort would probably be better spent enhancing Mailman3,
> >> since that's the future of the project anyway.
> >>
> >> Also, as someone that's been a Mailman site admin on installs
> >> of various sizes for about the past 20 years, I'm sort of looking
> >> forward to the promises of some of the little quirks of Mailman2
> >> getting some love. ;-)
> > 
> > Hi ports@
> > 
> > This may be tangential to aboveon python versions, but:
> > ports/mail/mailman supports Mailman2.
> > Mailman2 & Mailman3 are very different.
> > 
> > Even if it's possible to bend ports/mail/mailman to support Mailman3
> > Please do not do it; keep it clean for just Mailman2
> > (Else it would cause big run time problems for user admins (inc. me)).
> > 
> > Any who will want Mailman3 should please clone ports/mail/mailman to
> > ports/mail/mailman3 (not ports/mail/mailman2) & work there. Thanks
> 
> Julian,
> 
> and adding portmgr@ in bcc:
> 
> mailman 3 says on the tin that it is a DIFFERENT product, different
> codebase (rewritten from scratch), different and modular architecture,
> everything. No shared code with mailman 2.
> 
> So I, as mail/mailman maintainer, propose:
> 
> - NO "svn copy". mailman 3 will be a new port and that must be
>   reflected in the repo.  No descendence => no svn copy.
> 
> - NO rename. We should NOT rename mail/mailman (2.x) to .../mailman2
>   because mailman 3 is NOT a 1:1 replacement for mailman 2.
> 
> As current maintainer of the mail/mailman port, I am planning along the
> two points above.
> 
> 
> Re Python 2.x EOL, if someone made a Tauthon port (yeah portmgr@ yell me
> down for writing that thought), and we can still get mailman 2.1.x
> security updates, we might give it a spin on Tauthon 2.8 instead of
> Python 2.7 to have something in the interim while mailman 3 matures.

Thanks Mathias, sounds fine, leave it to you :-)
PS I've not the foggiest what Tauthon is , so searched
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Tauthon=Go=1
The page "Tauthon" does not exist.
cd /usr/ports ; cd */*tauthon* # */*tauthon*: No match.
https://forums.freebsd.org/tags/tauthon/-

Cheers
--
Julian Stacey, Consultant Systems Engineer, BSD Linux http://berklix.com/jhs/
http://www.berklix.org/corona/#masks150 Euro fine or tie 2 handkerchiefs ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-52304821 Brexit Dec. 2020 will hit UK more.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Greg Veldman]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 03:59:16AM +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> There are many thousand links to the freebsd pipermail archives,
> and invalidating all those links sounds like a serious loss of institutional
> memory.
> 
> Is there a way to cope with that ? Some sort of
> lookup 'old link' -> 'new link' ?

Internally, the Mailman archives are just a bunch of
script-generated flat HTML and TXT files.  The only Mailman
specific thing is the bit of logic that gates access to a
private archive with a credential check.  For public archives
(which if my understanding is right, most Mailman-managed
FreeBSD lists are) there should just be a line somewhere in
your HTTPD config that aliases pipermail/ to
/archives/public/.

So no matter what you switch to if/when Mailman2 dies, it
should be fairly trivial to preserve the current archives in
a read-only state at their current URLs.  Even private ones,
assuming you replace the Mailman gatekeeper with something
else (perhaps access control in your HTTPD itself).

-- 
Greg Veldman
free...@gregv.net
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Greg Veldman]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 07:56:08PM -0700, Chris wrote:
> I really like Perl a lot more for all this string/byte handling stuff.
> Maybe Majordomo? B-}

The latest release was two decades ago, not sure I'd go that
route. ;-)  Sympa would probably be a better choice.

-- 
Greg Veldman
free...@gregv.net
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[@lbutlr]

>> AIUI you can move your entire archive to the new system.
> 
> There are many thousand links to the freebsd pipermail archives,
> and invalidating all those links sounds like a serious loss of institutional
> memory.

As I said in the pat of my message you snipped, you do not have to remove your 
pipermail archives.

Here is is again:

You can even keep pipermail for your old archive. You just can’t use pipermail 
with the new system.



-- 
Looking into Granny's eyes was like looking into a mirror. What you
saw looking back at you was yourself, and there was no hiding
place.


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Chris]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 02:03:20 +0200 Matthias Andree matthias.and...@gmx.de said


Am 28.04.20 um 22:02 schrieb Chris:
> In sentiment I am inline with your thoughts as well.
> Would it be a worthy project to create a mailman(2)-lts port?
> I'd be fully up for helping, and or creating it myself.
> There's a port that's a shim for py2.x-->py3.x called 2to3, or something
> like that. It also wouldn't be that difficult to simply modify mailman(2)
> to adopt the py3.x language changes. 


Given that Mailman is mainly a text processing machine with various
heads (mail, web and CGI, command line) interfaces, and one of the ideas
driving the incompatible Python 3 was to clean up the delineation of the
strings/bytes/unicode types from one another and see to encoding. we'd
be in for lots of - ironically speaking - "fun" - meaning code audits,
revisions, possibly explicit code to write for the front lines to
properly decode external input and encode internal output.

The string stuff is the challenge (in python), and having just taken a
closer look, 3.x makes some changes in this area as well. Which only makes
the same challenges _different_. :(


I haven't looked into too much detail, but attaining 100% conversion and
test coverage would be a challenge and possibly a major undertaking.

I'd assume had it been as simple as 2to3 or py-futurize or adopting
py-six, someone might have done that already.

After looking closer, I'm inclined to say the (work) load appears close
to the same. Only the tasks have changed.

I really like Perl a lot more for all this string/byte handling stuff.
Maybe Majordomo? B-}

--Chris


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> On 28 Apr 2020, at 14:00, Chris  wrote:
> > as at *least* it completely abandons the previous archive system.
> 
> Pipermail was??? lacking. It looked 20 years old (because it was).
> 
> > Making your previous archive, an archive of an archive.
> 
> AIUI you can move your entire archive to the new system.

There are many thousand links to the freebsd pipermail archives,
and invalidating all those links sounds like a serious loss of institutional
memory.

Is there a way to cope with that ? Some sort of
lookup 'old link' -> 'new link' ?

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[@lbutlr]

On 28 Apr 2020, at 14:00, Chris  wrote:
> as at *least* it completely abandons the previous archive system.

Pipermail was… lacking. It looked 20 years old (because it was).

> Making your previous archive, an archive of an archive.

AIUI you can move your entire archive to the new system. You can even keep 
pipermail for your old archive. You just can’t use pipermail with the new 
system.




-- 
"Master, what is the difference between a humanistic, monastic system
of belief in which wisdom is sought by means of an apparently
nonsensical system of questions and answers, and a lot of mystic
gibberish made up on the spur of the moment?" Wen considered this
for some time, and a last said: "A fish!”


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Matthias Andree]

Am 28.04.20 um 22:02 schrieb Chris:
> In sentiment I am inline with your thoughts as well.
> Would it be a worthy project to create a mailman(2)-lts port?
> I'd be fully up for helping, and or creating it myself.
> There's a port that's a shim for py2.x-->py3.x called 2to3, or something
> like that. It also wouldn't be that difficult to simply modify mailman(2)
> to adopt the py3.x language changes. 

Given that Mailman is mainly a text processing machine with various
heads (mail, web and CGI, command line) interfaces, and one of the ideas
driving the incompatible Python 3 was to clean up the delineation of the
strings/bytes/unicode types from one another and see to encoding. we'd
be in for lots of - ironically speaking - "fun" - meaning code audits,
revisions, possibly explicit code to write for the front lines to
properly decode external input and encode internal output.

I haven't looked into too much detail, but attaining 100% conversion and
test coverage would be a challenge and possibly a major undertaking.

I'd assume had it been as simple as 2to3 or py-futurize or adopting
py-six, someone might have done that already.


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Julian H. Stacey]

Hi, Reference:
> From: Greg Veldman 
> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:33:42 -0400

Greg Veldman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:00:01PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Even if it's possible to bend ports/mail/mailman to support Mailman3
> > Please do not do it; keep it clean for just Mailman2
> > (Else it would cause big run time problems for user admins (inc. me)).
> > 
> > Any who will want Mailman3 should please clone ports/mail/mailman to
> > ports/mail/mailman3 (not ports/mail/mailman2) & work there. Thanks
> 
> There is not yet a port for Mailman3, but the one that is in
> progress looks like it will go into mail/mailman3 when complete.
> 
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225543
> 
> This should not cause any conflicts for Mailman2 users.
> 
> -- 
> Greg Veldman
> free...@gregv.net

Great, Thanks

Cheers
--
Julian Stacey, Consultant Systems Engineer, BSD Linux http://berklix.com/jhs/
http://www.berklix.org/corona/#masks150 Euro fine or tie 2 handkerchiefs ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-52304821 Brexit Dec. 2020 will hit UK more.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Greg Veldman]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:00:01PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Even if it's possible to bend ports/mail/mailman to support Mailman3
> Please do not do it; keep it clean for just Mailman2
> (Else it would cause big run time problems for user admins (inc. me)).
> 
> Any who will want Mailman3 should please clone ports/mail/mailman to
> ports/mail/mailman3 (not ports/mail/mailman2) & work there. Thanks

There is not yet a port for Mailman3, but the one that is in
progress looks like it will go into mail/mailman3 when complete.

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225543

This should not cause any conflicts for Mailman2 users.

-- 
Greg Veldman
free...@gregv.net
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Julian H. Stacey]

Greg Veldman wrote ports@:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:02:14PM -0700, Chris wrote:
> > It also wouldn't be that difficult to simply modify mailman(2)
> > to adopt the py3.x language changes.
> 
> To simply make it work, perhaps not.  To make it work well and
> be reliable... might be more difficult than you think.  A large
> chunk of what a mail handler of any variety does is text
> processing, and there are significant differences in that area
> in Python2 vs Python3.  E.g. ASCII vs Unicode.  You'd likely
> be opening a Pandora's box of corner cases and workarounds when
> $STUPIDLY_FORMATTED_MAIL_MESSAGE_OF_THE_HOUR comes through.
> 
> The effort would probably be better spent enhancing Mailman3,
> since that's the future of the project anyway.
> 
> Also, as someone that's been a Mailman site admin on installs
> of various sizes for about the past 20 years, I'm sort of looking
> forward to the promises of some of the little quirks of Mailman2
> getting some love. ;-)

Hi ports@

This may be tangential to aboveon python versions, but:
ports/mail/mailman supports Mailman2.
Mailman2 & Mailman3 are very different.

Even if it's possible to bend ports/mail/mailman to support Mailman3
Please do not do it; keep it clean for just Mailman2
(Else it would cause big run time problems for user admins (inc. me)).

Any who will want Mailman3 should please clone ports/mail/mailman to
ports/mail/mailman3 (not ports/mail/mailman2) & work there. Thanks

Cheers
--
Julian Stacey, Consultant Systems Engineer, BSD Linux http://berklix.com/jhs/
http://www.berklix.org/corona/#masks150 Euro fine or tie 2 handkerchiefs ?
www.bbc.com/news/business-52304821 Brexit Dec. 2020 will hit UK more.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Greg Veldman]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:02:14PM -0700, Chris wrote:
> It also wouldn't be that difficult to simply modify mailman(2)
> to adopt the py3.x language changes.

To simply make it work, perhaps not.  To make it work well and
be reliable... might be more difficult than you think.  A large
chunk of what a mail handler of any variety does is text
processing, and there are significant differences in that area
in Python2 vs Python3.  E.g. ASCII vs Unicode.  You'd likely
be opening a Pandora's box of corner cases and workarounds when
$STUPIDLY_FORMATTED_MAIL_MESSAGE_OF_THE_HOUR comes through.

The effort would probably be better spent enhancing Mailman3,
since that's the future of the project anyway.

Also, as someone that's been a Mailman site admin on installs
of various sizes for about the past 20 years, I'm sort of looking
forward to the promises of some of the little quirks of Mailman2
getting some love. ;-)

-- 
Greg Veldman
free...@gregv.net
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Chris]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:33:41 +0200 Matthias Andree matthias.and...@gmx.de said


[Dan, Kurt, this is a re-send of my message written 2020-04-24 with a
different sender address.]

Am 24.04.20 um 15:04 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
> Hi!
>
>> With mail/mailman being Python 2.7 (which is end-of-life), and mailman 3
> being Python 3 compatible:
>>
>> Do you know of any plans to port Mailman 3?
>
> There's already a PR about that:
>
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225543
>
> The patch itself is fine, but we need run-tests.
>
> This means: If you want to help,
> - use that patch,
> - build mailman3,
> - and install it somewhere and
> - test all the use-cases that you can think of
> - then write some docs on how to move an existing mailman2 site
>   to mailman3
> - and give ideas how to handle list archives
>   *especially* keeping the URLs identical (!)
>
> And, speaking as one of the postmaster@ team:
> As lists.freebsd.org uses mailman2, we need this!
>
> postmaster@ has not yet decided if we really want to move to mailman3,
> so we are open to other options. The mail archive is the biggest hurdle 8-(
>

Thanks Dan for the question, and Kurt for answering that question.

As the mailman2 maintainer frequently being asked about mailman3, here
are my thoughts on it.

TL;DR:

mailman3 documentation is an untidy inconsistent mess, is in my
perception not honestly and outright advertising the mailman 2.x
features that have not yet been reimplemented.

The minimum version to be ported should be the latest release as they
are still re-adding lost features, for instance, 3.3.1 is current has
brought bounce processing.

I am not driving mailman3 efforts, don't want be in the first line or
maintain a mailman 3.x port, but may help here or there if I am being
asked on advice.


Long version:

I have looked at Mailman 3 again and again, and the more often I look,
the more I balk at it. Mailman 3 will be five years old coming Tuesday
(3.0.0 released 2015-04-28), and the first-hand documentation is
scattered across web sites and inconsistent, not frequently updated for
the new releases.

Mailman 3 is also a new product, "Mailman 3 is a fully rewritten code
base."
.


It could bear a new name in honesty, and more importantly that means all
the workarounds and experience from  2.x are lost, and have to be
re-written, too.  And some have not been, and they admit it on the hind
pages.

- FEATURE ADVERTISING COMPLETENESS:

In quality and features 3.x appears to boast new "features" over 2.x but
does not in the same prominent place list what's missing. Most of the
"features" are implementation details that I don't deem critical for
day-to-day operation.

Others were just added less than a week ago, f.i. bounce processing only
arrived in 3.3.1 - and the web sites above advertising feature advances
over 2.x are at 3.3.0 or older status and DO NOT MENTION bounce
processing missing, so the only conclusion is that there are more 2.x
features missing in 3.x without being prominently marked as such.

Quoting NEWS.rst
> Features
> 
> * Add support for processing of email bounce events. Thanks to Aaryan Bhagat
> for
>   working on this as a part of his GSoC project and Thanks to Google for
>   sponsoring the project as a part of GSoC.(See !584)
Look right ABOVE the 3.3.0 section.

(gitlab cannot render it with decoration, this is a download link
instead, some 80 kB)

- MIGRATION:

http://docs.list.org/en/latest/migration.html mentions breaking archive
URLs, and also "Some configuration and settings aren’t available in
Mailman 3’s UI yet, so even though those settings will be migrated to
Mailman 3, you may not be able to change them from the Web UI today. All
of those settings should be exposed in the UI very soon.

Mailman 3 doesn’t have support for bounce processing yet, but it is on
the roadmap."

- so obviously the migration guide is outdated, too.


- DOCUMENTATION TIDINESS:

Mailman 3 documentation and everything is scattered across what feels
half a dozen places, all inconsistent WRT what is the current version,
features and all that, and obviously not kept up to date with releases.

- https://mailman.readthedocs.io/
- https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/ (not sure how that relates to
readthedocs, may be an alias or a copy)

- https://wiki.list.org/Mailman3

- http://www.list.org/

- https://gitlab.com/mailman

- https://pypi.org/project/mailman/ which seems to be the most up to
date download


- DEVELOPMENT AND COMPONENT CONCISENESS

The Gitlab site show many side projects with unclear relation to the
"mailman suite", no easily accessible roadmap besides a five-or-six-item
list of what makes up the suite.

Given the shape of the documents, and even assuming that documentation
is the first thing that falls short in commercial time-pressed

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Chris]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:43:49 +0200 Kurt Jaeger p...@freebsd.org said


Hi!

> I see the mailman lists themselves are now on Mailman 3:
> 
>

> 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-annou...@python.org/thread/HHQN7V6NY7G5CTOSC3WBU7VXW5KEBGVO/

Interesting!

Looks like a very uncomfortable design for uniq URLs 8-(

Agreed. It's also appears to be only about half completed.
In the end, this looks more a downgrade than an upgrade, as
at *least* it completely abandons the previous archive system.
Making your previous archive, an archive of an archive. :(
Hyperkitty -- isn't that sort of redundant? I mean; have you ever
seen a kitty that _wasn't_ *hyper* ? :)

--Chris





___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[@lbutlr]

On 28 Apr 2020, at 09:33, Matthias Andree  wrote:
> Leaving Python 3.x compatibility aside,

But that is the main issue. Python 2.7 is dead. Well, fine, it’s not quite dead 
yet, but it is also not feeling any better.

(I ran mailman lists for many years, but never made the move to mailman 3 and 
the lists petered out several years back, so I have no horse in this hunt (or 
is it dog in this race? :)).



-- 
HILLBILLIES ARE PEOPLE TOO Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF11


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Matthias Andree]

[Dan, Kurt, this is a re-send of my message written 2020-04-24 with a
different sender address.]

Am 24.04.20 um 15:04 schrieb Kurt Jaeger:
> Hi!
>
>> With mail/mailman being Python 2.7 (which is end-of-life), and mailman 3 
>> being Python 3 compatible:
>>
>> Do you know of any plans to port Mailman 3?
>
> There's already a PR about that:
>
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225543
>
> The patch itself is fine, but we need run-tests.
>
> This means: If you want to help,
> - use that patch,
> - build mailman3,
> - and install it somewhere and
> - test all the use-cases that you can think of
> - then write some docs on how to move an existing mailman2 site
>   to mailman3
> - and give ideas how to handle list archives
>   *especially* keeping the URLs identical (!)
>
> And, speaking as one of the postmaster@ team:
> As lists.freebsd.org uses mailman2, we need this!
>
> postmaster@ has not yet decided if we really want to move to mailman3,
> so we are open to other options. The mail archive is the biggest hurdle 8-(
>

Thanks Dan for the question, and Kurt for answering that question.

As the mailman2 maintainer frequently being asked about mailman3, here
are my thoughts on it.

TL;DR:

mailman3 documentation is an untidy inconsistent mess, is in my
perception not honestly and outright advertising the mailman 2.x
features that have not yet been reimplemented.

The minimum version to be ported should be the latest release as they
are still re-adding lost features, for instance, 3.3.1 is current has
brought bounce processing.

I am not driving mailman3 efforts, don't want be in the first line or
maintain a mailman 3.x port, but may help here or there if I am being
asked on advice.


Long version:

I have looked at Mailman 3 again and again, and the more often I look,
the more I balk at it. Mailman 3 will be five years old coming Tuesday
(3.0.0 released 2015-04-28), and the first-hand documentation is
scattered across web sites and inconsistent, not frequently updated for
the new releases.

Mailman 3 is also a new product, "Mailman 3 is a fully rewritten code
base."
.


It could bear a new name in honesty, and more importantly that means all
the workarounds and experience from  2.x are lost, and have to be
re-written, too.  And some have not been, and they admit it on the hind
pages.

- FEATURE ADVERTISING COMPLETENESS:

In quality and features 3.x appears to boast new "features" over 2.x but
does not in the same prominent place list what's missing. Most of the
"features" are implementation details that I don't deem critical for
day-to-day operation.

Others were just added less than a week ago, f.i. bounce processing only
arrived in 3.3.1 - and the web sites above advertising feature advances
over 2.x are at 3.3.0 or older status and DO NOT MENTION bounce
processing missing, so the only conclusion is that there are more 2.x
features missing in 3.x without being prominently marked as such.

Quoting NEWS.rst
> Features
> 
> * Add support for processing of email bounce events. Thanks to Aaryan Bhagat 
> for
>   working on this as a part of his GSoC project and Thanks to Google for
>   sponsoring the project as a part of GSoC.(See !584)
Look right ABOVE the 3.3.0 section.

(gitlab cannot render it with decoration, this is a download link
instead, some 80 kB)

- MIGRATION:

http://docs.list.org/en/latest/migration.html mentions breaking archive
URLs, and also "Some configuration and settings aren’t available in
Mailman 3’s UI yet, so even though those settings will be migrated to
Mailman 3, you may not be able to change them from the Web UI today. All
of those settings should be exposed in the UI very soon.

Mailman 3 doesn’t have support for bounce processing yet, but it is on
the roadmap."

 - so obviously the migration guide is outdated, too.


- DOCUMENTATION TIDINESS:

Mailman 3 documentation and everything is scattered across what feels
half a dozen places, all inconsistent WRT what is the current version,
features and all that, and obviously not kept up to date with releases.

- https://mailman.readthedocs.io/
- https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/ (not sure how that relates to
readthedocs, may be an alias or a copy)

- https://wiki.list.org/Mailman3

- http://www.list.org/

- https://gitlab.com/mailman

- https://pypi.org/project/mailman/ which seems to be the most up to
date download


- DEVELOPMENT AND COMPONENT CONCISENESS

The Gitlab site show many side projects with unclear relation to the
"mailman suite", no easily accessible roadmap besides a five-or-six-item
list of what makes up the suite.

Given the shape of the documents, and even assuming that documentation
is the first thing that falls short in commercial time-pressed
development, I find that messy.

There is certainly a LOT of work to do, work out 

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Matthias Andree]

Am 28.04.20 um 16:34 schrieb Dan Langille:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020, at 9:32 AM, Dan Langille wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 2020, at 9:04 AM, Kurt Jaeger  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
 With mail/mailman being Python 2.7 (which is end-of-life), and mailman 3 
 being Python 3 compatible:

 Do you know of any plans to port Mailman 3?
>>>
>>> There's already a PR about that:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225543
>>
>> Now 2 years old I see. Good start.
>>
>>> The patch itself is fine, but we need run-tests.
>>>
>>> This means: If you want to help,
>>> - use that patch,
>>> - build mailman3,
>>> - and install it somewhere and
>>> - test all the use-cases that you can think of
>>> - then write some docs on how to move an existing mailman2 site
>>>  to mailman3
>>
>> I'm guessing that's over and above what I found at:
>>
>> https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html
>>
>>
>>> - and give ideas how to handle list archives
>>>  *especially* keeping the URLs identical (!)
>>
>> I think the existing archives are static HTML.  I have some archives dating
>> back to 1999: https://www.unixathome.org/adsl/
>>
>> There might be some server-side rewrites or aliases to ensure that this
>> URL always works, before and after mailman3:
>>
>> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2020-April/118352.html 
>> 
>>
>> Let's compare 2 and 3 lists:
>>
>> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/
>> 
>>
>> https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-us...@mailman3.org/
>> 
>>
>> They are distinct (ignoring the hostname differences) so keeping the
>> old alongside the new should be safe.
>>
>>> And, speaking as one of the postmaster@ team:
>>> As lists.freebsd.org uses mailman2, we need this!
>>>
>>> postmaster@ has not yet decided if we really want to move to mailman3,
>>> so we are open to other options. The mail archive is the biggest hurdle 8-(
>>
>> Yes, we can't lose those.  I have my own archives to support.
>
> I see the mailman lists themselves are now on Mailman 3:
>
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-annou...@python.org/thread/HHQN7V6NY7G5CTOSC3WBU7VXW5KEBGVO/
>

Just figured my earlier message did not make it to the public
freebsd-ports list, I was using the wrong sender address. I will resend it.

However, I find that bears no relevance for the code itself whatsoever.
It is good that they have finally started dogfooding their produce, but
evidently it's limited to lists that can bear higher risk because there
is less user interaction, and if so, from more technically versed
audience (devel/announce).
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> I see the mailman lists themselves are now on Mailman 3:
> 
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-annou...@python.org/thread/HHQN7V6NY7G5CTOSC3WBU7VXW5KEBGVO/

Interesting!

Looks like a very uncomfortable design for uniq URLs 8-(

-- 
p...@freebsd.org +49 171 3101372  Now what ?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Dan Langille]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020, at 9:32 AM, Dan Langille wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 2020, at 9:04 AM, Kurt Jaeger  wrote:
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> >> With mail/mailman being Python 2.7 (which is end-of-life), and mailman 3 
> >> being Python 3 compatible:
> >> 
> >> Do you know of any plans to port Mailman 3?
> > 
> > There's already a PR about that:
> > 
> > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225543
> 
> Now 2 years old I see. Good start. 
> 
> > The patch itself is fine, but we need run-tests.
> > 
> > This means: If you want to help,
> > - use that patch,
> > - build mailman3,
> > - and install it somewhere and
> > - test all the use-cases that you can think of
> > - then write some docs on how to move an existing mailman2 site
> >  to mailman3
> 
> I'm guessing that's over and above what I found at:
> 
> https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html
> 
> 
> > - and give ideas how to handle list archives
> >  *especially* keeping the URLs identical (!)
> 
> I think the existing archives are static HTML.  I have some archives dating
> back to 1999: https://www.unixathome.org/adsl/
> 
> There might be some server-side rewrites or aliases to ensure that this
> URL always works, before and after mailman3:
> 
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2020-April/118352.html 
> 
> 
> Let's compare 2 and 3 lists:
> 
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/ 
> 
> 
> https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-us...@mailman3.org/ 
> 
> 
> They are distinct (ignoring the hostname differences) so keeping the
> old alongside the new should be safe. 
> 
> > And, speaking as one of the postmaster@ team:
> > As lists.freebsd.org uses mailman2, we need this!
> > 
> > postmaster@ has not yet decided if we really want to move to mailman3,
> > so we are open to other options. The mail archive is the biggest hurdle 8-(
> 
> Yes, we can't lose those.  I have my own archives to support.

I see the mailman lists themselves are now on Mailman 3:

https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-annou...@python.org/thread/HHQN7V6NY7G5CTOSC3WBU7VXW5KEBGVO/
-- 
  Dan Langille
  d...@langille.org
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Dan Langille]

> On Apr 24, 2020, at 9:04 AM, Kurt Jaeger  wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
>> With mail/mailman being Python 2.7 (which is end-of-life), and mailman 3 
>> being Python 3 compatible:
>> 
>> Do you know of any plans to port Mailman 3?
> 
> There's already a PR about that:
> 
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225543

Now 2 years old I see. Good start. 

> The patch itself is fine, but we need run-tests.
> 
> This means: If you want to help,
> - use that patch,
> - build mailman3,
> - and install it somewhere and
> - test all the use-cases that you can think of
> - then write some docs on how to move an existing mailman2 site
>  to mailman3

I'm guessing that's over and above what I found at:

https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html


> - and give ideas how to handle list archives
>  *especially* keeping the URLs identical (!)

I think the existing archives are static HTML.  I have some archives dating
back to 1999: https://www.unixathome.org/adsl/

There might be some server-side rewrites or aliases to ensure that this
URL always works, before and after mailman3:

https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2020-April/118352.html 


Let's compare 2 and 3 lists:

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/ 


https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-us...@mailman3.org/ 


They are distinct (ignoring the hostname differences) so keeping the
old alongside the new should be safe. 

> And, speaking as one of the postmaster@ team:
> As lists.freebsd.org uses mailman2, we need this!
> 
> postmaster@ has not yet decided if we really want to move to mailman3,
> so we are open to other options. The mail archive is the biggest hurdle 8-(

Yes, we can't lose those.  I have my own archives to support.

— 
Dan Langille
http://langille.org/




___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: mail/mailman v3?

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> With mail/mailman being Python 2.7 (which is end-of-life), and mailman 3 
> being Python 3 compatible:
> 
> Do you know of any plans to port Mailman 3?

There's already a PR about that:

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225543

The patch itself is fine, but we need run-tests.

This means: If you want to help,
- use that patch,
- build mailman3,
- and install it somewhere and
- test all the use-cases that you can think of
- then write some docs on how to move an existing mailman2 site
  to mailman3
- and give ideas how to handle list archives
  *especially* keeping the URLs identical (!)

And, speaking as one of the postmaster@ team:
As lists.freebsd.org uses mailman2, we need this!

postmaster@ has not yet decided if we really want to move to mailman3,
so we are open to other options. The mail archive is the biggest hurdle 8-(

-- 
p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"