[Mailman-Developers] Patch for Mail Archive mirroring
Bob Puff
bob at nleaudio.com
Fri May 6 08:28:59 CEST 2005
Personally, I'd much rather see the HT/Dig patch implemented before this one.
That is IMHO more useful to the average mailman admin than this.
Bob
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Jeff Marshall <marshman at frozenbear.com>
To: brad at stop.mail-abuse.org, stephen at xemacs.org
Cc: mailman-developers at python.org, chuqui at plaidworks.com
Sent: 05 May 2005 19:14:40 -0700
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Patch for Mail Archive mirroring
> I figured I would attempt a brief summary of major points brought up
> by the discussion.
>
> Concerns
> - proper documentation describing the feature and possibly Mailman's
> position on archiver tie-ins - make sure it defaults to off (it
> currently does) - we should look for opportunities to add safeguards
> - one possible safeguard - an option for admins to add the "X-No-
> Archive: yes" header - has pros and cons (cons: does it conflict
> with local pipermail archiving? possible conflict with user's X-No-
> Archive intentions?)
>
> Is it an endorsement?
> - people ranged from "seems like an endorsement" to "no more than
> mailman endorses the other software it works with" - I'm happy to do
> the work to make this feature work with other archiving services as
> well. Gmane looks like it is out. I will check with Hank at MARC.
>
> Overall
> - seems like most people think it is a positive patch (with the
> caveat that it defaults to "off") because it makes things easy for
> admins that choose to use it - in the end, it's up to Barry and
> Tokio. Hopefully one of them can jump in briefly and make the call,
> or ask me for some rework on the patch.
>
> Corrections or clarifications are welcome.
>
> Thanks to everyone for their consideration and response; people
> seemed to put a lot of energy into this. Much appreciated.
>
> Jeff Marshall
> marshman at frozenbear.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Knowles
> Date: 5/3/05 1:56 am
> To: Stephen J. Turnbull
> Cc: mailman-developers at python.org, Chuq Von Rospach , Chuq Von
> Rospach Subj: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Patch for Mail Archive mirroring
>
> At 5:37 PM +0900 2005-05-03, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> > Sure, they _are_ different, in a relevant way---they exist to broaden
> > distribution, including archiving. But I think that in the great
> > majority of cases where random users can just sign up, that is a
> > service to be encouraged. It's not a good idea to put the burden of
> > proof on them, when either the list-owner can be more selective about
> > membership, or they can use X-No-Archive.
>
> The problem here is that Mailman should not be adding an
> "X-No-Archive:" header to messages that it is processing. This is
> something that should be controlled from the perspective of the user,
> and Mailman should not be stepping on their toes.
>
> Moreover, if Mailman did add such a header, what would happen to
> the internal archiving system? Would Mailman ignore the header that
> it has added while honoring the same header that might have been put
> on the message by the user?
>
> As a list admin, I can see a strong desire to keep your own
> archive, but to want to prevent anyone else from maintaining an
> archive, at least not without your express approval. Unless, that
> is, you gateway to USENET news, in which case Google and others have
> news archives that you could not control and could not even be aware
> of in most cases. But then if you gateway to USENET news, you
> should be aware of this issue, and be prepared for what might happen.
>
> > Again, I'm not really arguing against the patch. It's the people who
> > might be doing extra releases (Barry and Tokio, right?) or answering
> > the FAQs (Brad and Mark, primus inter pares) who should decide if it
> > belongs in the Mailman distribution.
>
> IMO, the ultimate decision is up to Barry -- it's his project,
> and he gets to decide how things go. However, he is currently
> focusing on Mailman3 right now, and Tokio is the release engineer
> for Mailman2, and in the past Barry has been open to comments and
> suggestions from others. So, I imagine he might make his feelings
> known, but then leave the ultimate decision to Tokio, who would
> hopefully also take input from others.
>
> However, I don't see that Mark or I would necessarily have any
> more weight given to our comments during that discussion as a result
> of our work with the FAQ and answering the questions. I would hope
> that we would be heard along with the others commenting on the
> subject, and appropriate weight would be given to them by Barry and
> Tokio, but more based on their merits than on the work we do with
> the FAQ.
>
> There are plenty of other knowledgeable people on mailman-users
> and mailman-developers who don't (or haven't recently) done much of
> anything with the FAQ, and I would hope that their voices would be
> given as much weight relative to their experience as would ours.
>
> > I do advocate some kind of public statement about the policy toward
> > adding new facilities of this kind. One easy one would be "you write
> > the patch, and show that you conform to certain rules such as 'patch
> > defaults off' and 'service respects X-No-Archive as well as conforming
> > to relevant RFCs', and we'll put it in to the next regular release
> > that isn't already in feature freeze."
>
> I'm not so sure this is a good idea. At least, not so far as
> guaranteeing that it would be put in the next regular release. IMO,
> if the patch defaults to off, and the service conforms to the
> relevant RFCs and BCPs, then I think we should give it serious
> consideration, but I wouldn't want to guarantee anything more than
> serious consideration.
>
> > Or maybe it's worth encouraging such services, and being more helpful
> > about it.
>
> I would encourage more people to make patches, and to try to be
> more helpful about this process in general. But I wouldn't want to
> make any guarantees as to what would/would not get included --
> everything should get the appropriate level of consideration, but no
> guarantees beyond that.
>
> --
> Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>
>
> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
>
> -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
> Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
>
> SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.
> _______________________________________________
> Mailman-Developers mailing list
> Mailman-Developers at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
> Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/marshman%40frozzenbear.com
>
> Security Policy:
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.http
> _______________________________________________
> Mailman-Developers mailing list
> Mailman-Developers at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
> Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/bob%40nleaudio.com
>
> Security Policy:
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
------- End of Original Message -------
More information about the Mailman-Developers
mailing list