[Mailman-Users] Re: mailman v2.x
On 2020-08-26 21:28:30 (+0800), Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote: So, I have volunteered to spearhead an effort to add one or two more people to the Mailman Coders group[2] in order to vet and approve new features that continue the long tradition of providing value to Mailman 2.x. Who's with me on this? This is another long thread with many interesting points of view. I agree that new installations should probably use Mailman 3.x and trivial installations should migrate from Mailman 2.x to 3.x sooner rather than later. On the other hand, I don't believe that there is currently a burning need for large, complicated Mailman 2.x installations to hurry up and migrate to 3.x already. The FreeBSD Project runs an awful lot of very active mailing lists on Mailman 2.x. It's probably inevitable that we will eventually upgrade to Mailman 3.x. Given how active our mailing lists are and what Big Scary Daemons we have in our mailflow, this will likely be disruptive no matter what. In an effort to keep the disruption to a minimum, we're letting others exercise the upgrade paths before us. Hopefully by the time we find that we are forced to upgrade (for whatever reason), we won't run into too many edge cases of migration others haven't tried before us. Meanwhile, we're very grateful for any efforts to keep Mailman 2.x at least slightly maintained. Count me in for helping out with that. Thank you! Philip [hat: postmas...@freebsd.org] -- Philip Paeps Senior Reality Engineer Alternative Enterprises -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: mailman v2.x
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:37 PM Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > A couple of days ago, over on the MAILOP mailinglist, there was a long > thread titled 'Mailman confirmation email denial of service'. This > detailed some of the problems we've all seen with Mailman subscription > spam. The Mailman team has addressed a lot of these problems with > ReCAPTCHA support and additional configuration options. Arguably the > best solution has been the ReCAPTCHA integration. BUT, a lot of people > don't like the Google tie-ins that come with ReCAPTCHA. The person describing the problem in that thread had not set SUBSCRIBE_FORM_SECRET, and someone with apparently the same problem described it as "actually filling it correctly (password, confirmation...) and, as shown below, without even fetching the page containing the form first". I may well have misunderstood it, and apologise in advance if I have, but it seems that the problem in question could have been avoided using an existing feature of Mailman 2. (It would be ideal if Mailman 2 could be developed until the same set of people who installed it can install Mailman 3, but I don't know how realistic that is. I installed MM2 on a shared server, with no real expertise and at no extra cost, but have been told I would need to pay for a dedicated server to install MM3. I will probably move to MM3 mainly for its email-from-web feature, but pay to have the list hosted for me on a subdomain.) Best wishes Jonathan -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: mailman v2.x
Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users writes: > Again with the "Jim's team". Those other guys, that other group, them > folks That's nauseating to hear from you Stephen. I use the word "team" to describe people who work together closely to achieve common goals. That's just English. The team I'm on, the GNU Mailman Project whose core members control access to Mailman resources ranging from mailing list moderation to GSoC slots, has the goal of developing, maintaining and promoting Mailman 3, while winding down Mailman 2 gracefully. Mark's "gatekeeping" is a deliberate strategy to that end that is an economical use of our resources. Until you spoke up, there wasn't really an alternative anyway given Mark's expressed desire to EOL his support of Mailman 2. You have a different goal, maintaining, promoting, and developing Mailman 2. As far as I know, you have no interest in doing the same for Mailman 3 at this time. I believe that is also true of others who have expressed interest in your proposal. I don't see how you can question that these are different teams. We don't need to work together and we won't work together on 99% of what either team does. I do not understand why you take insult at references to this simple fact, and spew abuse in return. This abuse is quite different from getting upset at the GNU Mailman Project's policy of deprecating Mailman 2. That imposes real costs on you. I understand why that frustrates you. I understand why you want to share in our resources and our reputation that we built up and we maintain, rather than fork a new project. And you know what? Even though your goal of promoting Mailman 2 is apparently opposed to our goal of winding down Mailman 2, it presents a great opportunity to do it with grace. I understand and to some extent agree with Brian's concerns about technical debt and irresponsible providers. But I don't really see how a shoot-the-prisoner approach to Mailman 2 EOL addresses the technical debt and provider issues given the switching costs that Mailman 2 users still face. So I think it would benefit Mailman 2 users in the community to take up a friendly offer to maintain Mailman 2, and not really harm our goals. Problem is, you are not friendly. You are hostile and abusive, and I don't understand why. Ball's in your court, Jim. > Stephen, just who do you think did the DMARC research and work in > MM2? What's your point? Again, you seem to have taken offense, but I'm not sure why. The only contribution I deprecated was my own, and I'm baffled at the connection to who did DMARC work. To answer your question, though, Franck Martin of LinkedIn and DMARC contributed the original from_is_list patch. I contributed an alternative, RFC-conforming wrapper approach (that wasn't useful because of Apple Mail's mishandling message/rfc-822 parts), and liaised with the DMARC Consortium. You did something that I forget exactly, IIRC related to the DNS fiddling that enabled the mitigations only on p=reject domains, which made from_is_list a lot more palatable. Mark did the integration of about 2 dozen patches, testing, much of the documentation, and cut several releases specifically to ensure that the users got the best DMARC handling we could offer right away. Other people contributed various improvements that I don't recall offhand, I think the above are the main ones though. And we owe a debt to a few PyPI packages. -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: mailman v2.x
On Sat, 2020-08-29 at 03:53 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Jim Popovitch via Mailman-Users writes: > > > Again with the "Jim's team". Those other guys, that other group, them > > folks That's nauseating to hear from you Stephen. > > I use the word "team" to describe people who work together closely to > achieve common goals. That's just English. Yet, (as you write in the 4 paragraphs below) you see no benefit of working together closely with anyone in favor of continuing work on mm2. So which use of "team" is it Stephen? > The team I'm on, the GNU > Mailman Project whose core members control access to Mailman resources > ranging from mailing list moderation to GSoC slots, has the goal of > developing, maintaining and promoting Mailman 3, while winding down > Mailman 2 gracefully. Mark's "gatekeeping" is a deliberate strategy > to that end that is an economical use of our resources. Until you > spoke up, there wasn't really an alternative anyway given Mark's > expressed desire to EOL his support of Mailman 2. > > You have a different goal, maintaining, promoting, and developing > Mailman 2. As far as I know, you have no interest in doing the same > for Mailman 3 at this time. I believe that is also true of others who > have expressed interest in your proposal. > > I don't see how you can question that these are different teams. We > don't need to work together and we won't work together on 99% of what > either team does. I do not understand why you take insult at > references to this simple fact, and spew abuse in return. > > This abuse is quite different from getting upset at the GNU Mailman > Project's policy of deprecating Mailman 2. That imposes real costs on > you. I understand why that frustrates you. I understand why you want > to share in our resources and our reputation that we built up and we > maintain, rather than fork a new project. And you know what? Even > though your goal of promoting Mailman 2 is apparently opposed to our > goal of winding down Mailman 2, it presents a great opportunity to do > it with grace. I understand and to some extent agree with Brian's > concerns about technical debt and irresponsible providers. But I > don't really see how a shoot-the-prisoner approach to Mailman 2 EOL > addresses the technical debt and provider issues given the switching > costs that Mailman 2 users still face. So I think it would benefit > Mailman 2 users in the community to take up a friendly offer to > maintain Mailman 2, and not really harm our goals. > > Problem is, you are not friendly. You are hostile and abusive, and I > don't understand why. Because friendly got us all the way to this point, and it's a point that could have, and should have, been avoided by not alienating mm2 users and site owners. Your "team" did that alienation, don't try to throw it off as the fault of others who are identifying it. > Ball's in your court, Jim. > > > Stephen, just who do you think did the DMARC research and work in > > MM2? > > What's your point? Again, you seem to have taken offense, but I'm not > sure why. The only contribution I deprecated was my own, and I'm > baffled at the connection to who did DMARC work. I'm baffled because you claimed to have headaches from doing all the DMARC work, and, honestly, you weren't a part of the DMARC work that Mark, Phil and I did. And up until our work there was no widely used or well known DMARC solution in mm2 other than from_is_list (which, lets face it, hardly anybody knew about or used). Frank's patch (from 2012) was not really a solution, and Mark did most of the work on that. Here's the commit log: https://code.launchpad.net/~mlm-author/mailman/2.1-author/+merge/115035 Here's the source of my DMARC work: https://code.launchpad.net/~jimpop/mailman/dmarc-reject Here's Phil's contributions: https://code.launchpad.net/~phil.pennock/mailman/dmarc-reject And if you look in this list you will find several other merges from me on DMARC handling: https://code.launchpad.net/%7Emailman-coders/mailman/2.1/+merges What I can't find on that list is contributions/merges from you Stephen. > To answer your question, though, Franck Martin of LinkedIn and DMARC > contributed the original from_is_list patch. I contributed an > alternative, RFC-conforming wrapper approach (that wasn't useful > because of Apple Mail's mishandling message/rfc-822 parts), and > liaised with the DMARC Consortium. You did something that I forget > exactly, IIRC related to the DNS fiddling that enabled the mitigations > only on p=reject domains, which made from_is_list a lot more > palatable. Mark did the integration of about 2 dozen patches, > testing, much of the documentation, and cut several releases > specifically to ensure that the users got the best DMARC handling we > could offer right away. Other people contributed various improvements > that I don't recall offhand, I think the above are the main ones > though. And we owe a debt to
[Mailman-Users] Re: mailman v2.x
OK guys, what's really going on here? Stephen and Mark, you are both thoughtful writers and crucial members of the Mailman team. Jim, you have made a generous offer that seems to have the support of the Mailman 2 user community, at least. Is this about turf? Is there something about Jim's proposal that requires resources (money, proprietary code, prestige, etc.) from the GNU Mailman group? I really can't see a zero-sum game here, unless you are genuinely concerned that the continued viability of MM2 would be a threat to MM3. I have a little experience here. In 1979 an IBM programmer developed Rexx, which became the lingua-franca for all IBM operating systems. Internally, IBM developed an O-O version of Rexx which was available only on OS/2. In 1997, after many years of negotiation, IBM donated one of its proprietary products to an open-source project for the first time. I was the president of the Rexx Language Association and established the ooRexx Project to port it to Linux and care for it. In 2011, IBM gave us NetRexx, Rexx for the Java virtual machine. We now also support BSF4ooRexx, which is the full ooRexx for the JVM. These are three quite diverse codebases, each with their contributors/committers and project-level discussion groups, but there is quite a bit of cross-team communication and collaboration. Is there any reason why this can't be the case with Jim and whatever team he can assemble? I can see that it won't immediately lift the entire burden of MM2 off of Mark's shoulders, but it's a better start (and example to set) than simply declaring EOL on MM2 and leaving thousands of admins in the lurch. What am I missing? -Chip- -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
[Mailman-Users] Re: mailman v2.x
For clarity- As I understand, given the language differences MM3 was a complete rewrite of MM2, so the only common parts are some features, the use of python (at all), and the name. Yes? Therefore anyone working on MM2 isn't impeding the work on MM3, especially if they weren't going to work on MM3 anyway. On 8/28/2020 3:02 PM, Chip Davis wrote: [...] These are three quite diverse codebases, each with their contributors/committers and project-level discussion groups, but there is quite a bit of cross-team communication and collaboration. Just like with net/open/free BSD (and related or spinoff projects), and with things being ported between them and to/from linux. The world still hasn't ended. It's all well and good to say "_We_ don't want to maintain this code.", it's vastly different to say "Pay no attention to that GPL, no one is allowed to maintain or improve that code." With the former, might as well welcome in a group of people to the overall project with the express intent of maintaining 2.x. With the latter, it's off into saying "no maintenance, no changes, nothing" and probably the same group of people will fork off the code-base, maybe change the name, and do their maintenance/updates anyway. Or... it's pretty likely that MM2 maintenance, and maybe improvements, will continue in some fashion. The question is whether that's under the auspices of the gnu-mailman project or in a fork. If the existing gnu-mailman team doesn't want new members working on old code, and that's the way it sounds, just say so and give the blessing for a code fork. Later, z! -- Mailman-Users mailing list -- mailman-users@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/ https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.org/
