On Nov 1, 2011, at 7:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Joe, > > The second choice seems more optimal, with focus on preserving the forwarding > and neglect of the OO.o mailing lists.
This is your focus. I am focused on the mailing lists, too. > > There is no intention to support the mailing lists and folks are being > invited > to move to lists created by the podling as we speak. No automatic > transportation or preservation of subscription lists is intended, nor are the > archives being preserved by the podling. Both choices preserve all of the old OOo MLs as forwarders to the new AOOo(i) MLs. This may include securityteam@oo.o to ooo-security@i.a.o. > > If some sort of rescue is achieved for (selective) OOo lists, that would be a > separate effort and have to be sustained by PPMC resources, as you say. Yes, you may have noticed Rob and Kay's efforts to move people. They also mapped existing lists into an AOOo ML pattern. This can easily become a static map for the forwarders. I would say that the PPMC is engaged, it will be in people's own interest. I don't see a problem finding the resources to complete this part. If we go with the first choice it is managed by Infra. If we go with the second choice is is managed by the PPMC. And this is the choice for the PPMC to make. Choice two is on a jail. What could be on that? Will it be highly available? What happens when it goes down? Choice one is a more highly available, scalable, supportable choice. We should be sure that preserving an overall mapping is worth the effort and tradeoffs. Without volunteers to maintain the "jail" and forwarders that Joe will setup the decision is easy - choice one. That said I appreciate your energy. There is still the legal question. Once that is answered and there is a consensus or vote we can proceed. Best Regards, Dave > > > - Dennis E. Hamilton > tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/> > dennis.hamil...@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 17:47 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: orc...@apache.org; 'Lawrence Rosen' > Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ openoffice.org e-mail addresses > > [ ... ] > > 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. > > > HTH > > > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: "orc...@apache.org" <orc...@apache.org>; 'Lawrence Rosen' >> <lro...@rosenlaw.com> >> 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 <dave2w...@comcast.net> >>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Cc: "orc...@apache.org" <orc...@apache.org>; 'Lawrence Rosen' >>>> <lro...@rosenlaw.com> >>>> 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 securityteam@OO.o? >>>> >>>> (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. >> >> >> >>
