What happens to emails when someone a year from now sends an email to dspace-t...@lists.sourceforge.net, since a decade of random documentation suggests so, they've historically been subscribed, and used to just work?
I'm guessing they'll get a bounce, can there be a message in the bounce? "This listserv has migrated to dspace-tech@gg . com" Or is there some forwarding option? I tend to like Mark Wood's tonic of "rip the bandaid off now", so, migrate to GG, and decommission SF. ________________ Peter Dietz Longsight www.longsight.com pe...@longsight.com p: 740-599-5005 x809 On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Tim Donohue <tdono...@duraspace.org> wrote: > Hi Graham, > > The Groups Migration API unfortunately only works for Google Apps Groups. > It won't work for normal "googlegroups.com" Groups (annoying, I agree). > See it's prerequisites: > > https://developers.google.com/admin-sdk/groups-migration/v1/guides/prerequisites > (There's also no way to migrate a Google Apps Group to a normal " > googlegroups.com" Group. So you cannot even use Migrations API as a "pass > through".) > > So, the only route to migrate messages into googlegroups.com is to send > them via SMTP. Here's an example: > https://github.com/wojdyr/fityk/wiki/MigrationToGoogleGroups > > Unfortunately, that's the route that seems to no longer take note of the > "Date:" field. This is the same route that Fedora used when they moved > from SF to GG. But, back then (mid-2013), GG *did* respect the "Date:" > field even when sending archives via SMTP. Though Fedora had a different > problem back in 2013, where all messages migrated under the same user -- if > you browse the Fedora archives ( > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/fedora-tech) back to mid-2013 > you'll find that all messages appear under a user named "Fedo Raadmin" > (Fedora Admin). In my test migrations, all migrated messages retain the > "From:" field (sender info) and all other fields *except* for "Date:". > Interestingly, the "Date:" field actually does get migrated properly, but > it is no longer utilized in the browse interface for Google Groups (instead > it seems to be using the date provided in the latest "Received:" header). > > That's the best solution I've managed to come up with thus far. If you > know of anything else, I'd definitely be interested. But from my tests, > sadly, I haven't been able to find any way around the "Date:" problem. > > - Tim > > > > On 8/3/2015 10:12 AM, Graham Triggs wrote: > > How are you planning to do the migration, as the Groups Migration API > documentation suggests that it does take notice of the Date: field in the > (RFC 822 formatted) messages? > > G > > On 3 August 2015 at 15:40, Tim Donohue <tdono...@duraspace.org> wrote: > >> Hi Developers / Committers, >> >> As of yet, I've heard little feedback on the proposed mailing list >> migration. So, I'm assuming no one else has major objections to any of >> these options. >> >> Currently, I'm leaning towards just migrating all mailing lists + >> archives into Google Groups, even though the dates of archived messages >> will appear incorrectly (this is option #1 described below). We can >> then add a note to the Google Group description letting everyone know >> that earlier messages all appear under the same date. I have not yet >> scheduled a start date for this process, but I'd hope to have it >> completed by the end of August. I plan to migrate less active lists >> first, and save our most active lists (dspace-tech especially) for >> last. Obviously though, I'll let each list know prior to migrating that >> list. >> >> Please do let me know though, if you have any thoughts (or prior Google >> Groups migration experience to share). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tim >> >> On 7/29/2015 2:27 PM, Tim Donohue wrote: >> > Hi Developers, >> > >> > In case you haven't seen recent Developer Meeting notes, I wanted to >> > update everyone here on recent working investing the migration of our >> > DSpace mailing lists off of SourceForge (lists.sourceforge.net). As >> > you may have heard, SourceForge had some major stability issues >> > recently [1], plus there's been controversy around its practices [2], >> > not to mention the fact that all our mailing lists have crashed twice >> > this year already (Feb then last week). >> > >> > So, in some discussions on IRC, several of us feel it's about time to >> > move entirely off SourceForge. This includes finding a new home for >> > our mailing lists (including this one). >> > >> > Thus far, my concentration has been in looking to migrate us to Google >> > Groups. While everyone has their favorites, I've personally found >> > Google Groups easier to manage, and much easier to browse and search >> > (than Mailman which SourceForge uses). Plus, many other open source >> > projects in our space have jumped to Google Groups, including Fedora, >> > Hydra, Islandora. DSpace also already uses Google Groups for the >> > DSpace Community Advisory Team (DCAT) mailing list (and it's become >> > the "de facto" standard within DuraSpace for new mailing lists, >> > honestly). So, in a sense we'd be consolidating on GG. >> > >> > But, there is a big "gotcha" (hence this email discussion). >> > >> > In my testing, while I can migrate our SF mailing list archives to GG, >> > Google Groups ignores the *original* message's "Date" header. This >> > means that if we were to move our mailing list archives to Google >> > Groups, all the old messages will "appear" as if they were posted on >> > the migration date (i.e. while the message's date header may say 2004, >> > Google Groups will show it as 2015). Only the *date* seems affected. >> > From my testing, the archived messages, the authors, subjects and >> > their discussion threads all migrate well (and in the proper order). >> > But, the visible date ends up wrong. >> > >> > (If anyone else has experience with this, please do get in touch. At >> > this point, I suspect it's just Google Groups ignores these old "Date" >> > email headers in favor of the latest "Received" email header. But I >> > honestly cannot find proof of others seeing the same behavior. >> > Strangely, Fedora didn't see this behavior when they migrated back in >> > 2013 from SF to GG. But, since I'm using the exact same process they >> > used, I suspect this may be a recent change in GG behavior.) >> > >> > Because of this odd date issue, we are left with a bit of a conundrum. >> > Do we... >> > >> > 1) Migrate to Google Groups, and just let the older messages all >> > appear under Aug 2015 (or whatever the migration date ends up being). >> > This makes the old archives browsable/searchable via GG, but the dates >> > are not at all trustworthy / may cause confusion. >> > >> > 2) Migrate to Google Groups, but leave our archives behind / saved >> > elsewhere. This would mean we'd be starting "fresh". The old SF >> > archives could be saved as static files off dspace.org (so they would >> > be searchable in Google). Plus, they'd still be searchable via >> > archival sites like Nabble, GMane, The Mail Archive, etc. (and we tend >> > to point users to those services to search our archives anyways, since >> > SF archives are hard to search/browse). >> > >> > 3) Look into migrating our list elsewhere (not Google Groups). (Though >> > as mentioned, GG seems to be the new "de facto" standard these days >> > both within DuraSpace and with other open source repository platforms. >> > I don't see that changing anytime soon, as they all seem happy with GG.) >> > >> > 4) Stay on SourceForge a bit longer for mailing lists ONLY. (Though as >> > mentioned, our lists have crashed twice in the last 6 months. Not very >> > confidence building.) >> > >> > Thoughts? Or anyone else have experience with migrating list archives >> > into Google Groups with tips to share? >> > >> > - Tim >> > >> > >> > [1] https://twitter.com/sfnet_ops (see posts from July 17 until today. >> > As of today, all SF services are still not fully restored) >> > [2] >> > >> http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/sourceforge-addresses-the-controversy-surrounding-ad-bundling/ >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Dspace-devel mailing list >> Dspace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-devel >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Dspace-devel mailing list > Dspace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-devel > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Dspace-devel mailing list Dspace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-devel
