[sf-lug] Have a fine Sunday! :-) (was: Re: done*: SF-LUG & MX records ... @lists.sf-lug.org ...)

[Michael Paoli]

Rick,

Thanks for your work on this - do have yourself a fine Sunday!
No reason nor rush for you to be doing unpaid volunteer work related
to SF-LUG when you'd rather not be - and especially when it isn't
even particularly important but would just be a "nice to have
also".  So, ... revisit it if/when, and to the extent you want,
no need to do so sooner.

And if/when you might be interested too, I'd think at least some on this
SF-LUG list, and quite possibly also including myself, might be interested
in some, or even many, of the details of what was attempted, how, what
did/didn't work, and was tried, checked, and seen along the way, etc.

As for myself, @list.sf-lug.org and/or @sf-lug.org - definitely not that
high on my priorities.  If you want to give me login and/or other access
to look at it and/or possibly even adjust, might take me a fair while to
get to it.  E.g. in the LUG realm, I've got things higher on my LUGs
todo tasks, e.g. getting BALUG disentangled, and smoothly as feasible,
from DreamHost.com and their gross repeated incompetence (at least in
more recent years - they'd been pretty much problem free earlier on -
but certainly not more recently).

Daniel Gimpelevich and Jim Stockford (and perhaps some others?) seem
relatively interested in it being done ... but who wouldn't be interested in
someone else doing one's "work" ... and for free! ... but that tends to wear
thin after a while.  Usually at least fair bit more tit for tat - or  
reasonable
approximations thereof, and good will, etc., tends to work better -  
and especially
over the longer term.

Anyway, @lists.sf-lug.org., etc., may be quite nice and desirable on the
longer term, ... but certainly no where close to any extreme rush.

Also good to make efficient use of the time/resources of volunteers.
E.g. last year when linuxmafia.com was down (and with it the SF-LUG list),
I didn't pick the route that would be most efficient and quick to get the
host and list(s) back up again.  Rather, I picked route which (in addition to
being an fairly interesting technical challenge for me) was probably among
the least consuming of Rick's time/resources ... and thus also more probable
to in *net* effect end up with the site back up some fair bit sooner (at least
when we finally got around to it, and had some time to coordinate, anyway).

Hmmm, very recently - like this PM today, got a
"Your job, should you decide to accept it ...", which I fairly quickly  
interrupted
with "And what am I getting paid for this 'job'?".

Yes, ... homework, ... that's mostly for class(es) one's enrolled in  
at school.
And, someone *else*'s homework? ... shouldn't be *doing* it for someone
else ... but might assist someone with their homework, if one wishes to,
and it's allowed and appropriate, etc.

> From: "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] done*: SF-LUG & MX records ... @lists.sf-lug.org ...
> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:30:47 -0800

> Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):
>
>> done*:
>> $ dig -t MX lists.sf-lug.org. +short
>> 100 linuxmafia.com.
>> $ dig -t A lists.sf-lug.org. +short
>> 198.144.195.186
>> $
>
> This works in the sense that a message sent to rick at lists.sf-lug.org now
> reaches me.
>
> I've spend the last couple of hours banging my head up against many
> details of Mailman's virtual domain support and Apache's Location
> stanzas and special provisions for Mailman CGIs, trying to make
> test2 at lists.sf-lug.org work right.  I can provide details if there is
> interest.
>
> However, it doesn't fully work -- almost but not quite -- and as I spent
> time on this, I stopped and thought:  _Why_ am I surrendering my time
> for this, at risk of taking down essential service on my server?  What
> problem am I fixing, and why do I care about it?
>
> Anyway, enough of this madness.  This was a hard slog the last time I
> did it for _Linux Gazette_, and I did _that_ because I helped run that
> magazine.  You guys are not _Linux Gazette_.
>
> I do not care to pursue this matter further.  If Michael Paoli, the only
> other person on this mailing list I would trust to change services on my
> personal Internet server, wishes to attempt to solve the remaining
> Mailman/Apache2 problems for this task that someone-I-don't-know-who
> decided to assign me as homework, he had my blessing to do so.
> Otherwise, I am done with this.
>
> SF-LUG, please cease attempting to assign me unpaid work, especially
> work that involves making modifications to my perfectly
> functional-as-it-is Internet server.  Thank you.
>
> (I just removed mailing list test2.)
>
> I'm going to go off and have a Sunday.  Part of one, anyway.