[sf-lug] What's the argument for sf-lug.* MX records?

[Michael Paoli]

I thought I covered that (probably more than) sufficiently.

In brief:
MX records - for sf-lug.TLD and/or SUBDOMAIN.sf-lug.TLD
where TLD would at least include org, and might also include com and info,
and SUBDOMAIN would likely be lists,
would most notably allow email to be sent to @[SUBDOMAIN.]sf-lug.TLD,
e.g. could have a list posting address of:
sf-lug at lists.sf-lug.org
which is a bit more intuitive and easier for users to use and remember, than:
sf-lug at linuxmafia.com

Oh, and among other advantages - one I forgot to mention earlier (below),
by using [SUBDOMAIN.]sf-lug.TLD,
it potentially allows relative independence of/from linuxmafia.com
E.g. if some day, Rick Moen were to be replaced with an evil space alien,
and refused to host SF-LUG list on linuxmafia.com, then SF-LUG would still
be able to continue hosting list(s) on [SUBDOMAIN.]sf-lug.TLD, without need
to change email address(es) or (if A/AAAA records also used) URL(s) (that's
also presuming SF-LUG had or could set up the list hosting resources  
somewhere).

Anyway, the earlier bits below I think cover it pretty thoroughly  
(maybe even in
too much and a bit redundant detail).  Feel free, anyone, to chime in  
if you think
there are any quite substantial pro/con considerations I've not  
already covered in
the below mentioned earlier plus the additional bit mentioned above.

> From: jim <jim at well.com>
> Subject: Re: SF-LUG & MX records, etc. (sf-lug at lists.sf-lug.org, or ... )
> Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:04:28 +0000

>
>     What's the argument for sf-lug.* MX records?
>     The only one I can see is to have a postmaster@
> (and perhaps info@ and one or two other administrative
> email names) so's people can notify, complain, etc.
> with respect to the sf-lug web site.
>     Myself, I don't see the need, but I defer to y'all;
> 't would be nice to understand.
>
>
>
>
> On 01/02/2016 07:38 AM, Michael Paoli wrote:
>> Daniel (and Rick and Jim),
>>
>> Daniel - Ah, you're about half a step ahead of me.  :-)
>>
>> Yes, I remember the earlier communications, regarding email and the
>> sf-lug list and such.  I was thinking along relatively similar lines,
>> but with a slight difference - if/presuming Rick (and Jim, and yourself
>> or anyone else relevant that it may matter to), rather than have
>> the MX records for the domains go to linuxmafia.com, I was instead
>> thinking subdomain, e.g.:
>>
>> lists.sf-lug.org. IN MX 50 linuxmafia.com.
>> (and any other applicable records, e.g. A, AAAA, TXT, SPF, ...)
>> ... heck, could even delegate as a DNS subdomain (that might be
>> teensy bit overkill, but certainly also highly doable).
>>
>> Yes, there are pros and cons of doing vs. not doing a subdomain,
>> but I think the arguments for doing subdomain (and with or without DNS
>> delegation) (slightly?) outweigh those of not going with subdomain.
>>
>> Here's the pros I come up with for sub-domain:
>>
>> o allow for possible separate handling, origination, and administration
>>  of email, namely list email and related resources can be
>>  administratively quite independent (just delegate and all else is
>>  quite independent).
>> o allows for the possibility of mail such as:
>>  security at sf-lug.org
>>  webmaster at sf-lug.org
>>  security at lists.sf-lug.org
>>  webmaster at lists.sf-lug.org
>>  to each go to appropriate administrative realms, and without either
>>  having to first go through handling by one if it may be (much or more)
>>  relevant to the other.
>> o Each can (at least if desired) receive and originate mail, with
>>  reduced probability of complications, interference, entanglements,
>>  etc. of the other.
>> o website stuff for list can work in manner quite corresponding with
>>  email, e.g.:
>>  sf-lug at lists.sf-lug.org
>>  http://lists.sf-lug.org/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
>>  and with the above, there can also be A (and if applicable AAAA)
>>  record(s) to lists.sf-lug.org. independent of sf-lug.org.'s IP
>>  address(es).  Can also potentially set up separate web page(s) with
>>  same subdomain, e.g.:
>>  http://lists.sf-lug.org/
>>  Could even potentially use rewrites/redirects to simplify:
>>  http://lists.sf-lug.org/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
>>  to just:
>>  http://lists.sf-lug.org/
>>  and serve up same content - whereas the above isn't really an option
>>  without subdomain
>> o And *wherever* it may go, lists.sf-lug.org. could be handled and
>>  managed quite independently of sf-lug. - it also doesn't preclude such
>>  from all being run off of the same site/host, if/when that might ever
>>  be desired and feasible.
>> o it may be at least somewhat more clear and intuitive as to
>>  what sf-lug at lists.sf-lug.org is likely for (almost certainly would
>>  appear to be some type of list related email address) as opposed to
>>  sf-lug at sf-lug.org (clearly something to do with sf-lug, but what
>>  exactly - maybe a generic contact address?)
>> o if subdomain isn't used, can be more complex/hazardous, etc., to later
>>  separate out to separate administration if/when that may be desired,
>>  where sf-lug.org would have both list, and non-list email.
>> o DNS - could even delegate lists.sf-lug.org. subdomain, thus delegating
>>  even more direct control to the administrative realm handling
>>  lists.sf-lug.org.
>>
>> Of course often nothing is 100% - we do also have the cons:
>> o sf-lug at sf-lug.org is simpler and shorter than sf-lug at lists.sf-lug.org
>>  - probably a bit easier for users to remember and type, etc. (they
>>  might also forget, is it @list.sf-lug.org or @lists.sf-lug.org)
>> o maybe there won't ever be particular need/reason/desire for
>>  @sf-lug.org to have email independent of and unrelated to
>>  @lists.sf-lug.org - and if so, why complicate by adding subdomain
>> o probably not a huge deal to change it later if need be - it's not like
>>  millions/billions of folks use it and there would continue to be
>>  substantial traffic and links using a long-ago since changed email
>>  address or web site addresses or URLs - so why sweat it?
>>
>> Anyway, think it over a bit, let me know your thoughts, and when we have
>> something at least approximating consensus (at least among the relevant
>> admin folks), I'll proceed with whatever we come up with, as far as the
>> DNS and such goes.
>>
>> Oh, I *might* be at the SF-LUG meeting this Sunday ... about 50%
>> probability at this point - I'll likely know much more specifically
>> regarding that by late Saturday, or Sunday AM at the latest (turns out
>> I'll be headed into San Francisco anyway - still working out the earlier
>> parts of my schedule for that day).
>>
>>
>>> From: "Daniel Gimpelevich" <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us>
>>> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] sf-lug.{com,info} --> www.sf-lug.org (canonical)
>>> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 22:26:17 -0800
>>
>>> On Fri, 2016-01-01 at 22:09 -0800, Michael Paoli wrote:
>>>
>>> While you're doing that, can you please kindly point the MX records for
>>> all the domains to linuxmafia.com? Thanx