[sf-lug] relocate SF-LUG list from linuxmafia.com (on linuxmafia.com) to lists.sf-lug.org (on BALUG VM)?

Michael Paoli Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu
Thu Jun 3 06:57:53 PDT 2021

And ... survey closed and results:
12 responses (4.6% of 259 list members)
3 (25%) move SF-LUG list to sf-lug at lists.sf-lug.org and archives to
         lists.sf-lug.org (hosted on BALUG virtual machine)
9 (75%) keep SF-LUG list at sf-lug at linuxmafia.com and archives on
         linuxmafia.com (hosted on linuxmafia.com)

Certainly no overwhelming mandate to move it, or even close,
so, shall remain where it is.

> From: "Michael Paoli" <Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: relocate SF-LUG list from linuxmafia.com (on  
> linuxmafia.com) to lists.sf-lug.org (on BALUG VM)?
> Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 20:46:49 -0700

> So ... I think it's been a while since this was last discussed ...
> http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2017q3/012859.html
> ...
> So, what say y'all?  Should we (uhm, like me - whatever)
> relocate the SF-LUG list from linuxmafia.com (hosted on linuxmafia.com
> operated by Rick Moen)
> to lists.sf-lug.org on BALUG Virtual Machine (VM) (operated by  
> Michael Paoli)?
> Anyway, various pros/cons ... I'm sure folks could add to the list.
> I also put up a not very scientific survey at:
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Y8BZZL7
> Just select and option and the DONE button ... and it's done and submitted
> (essentially anyone can do that ... also nothin' to prevent same person
> voting more than once - like I said, not very scientific).  And I
> randomized the order of the response options - so they'll be shown in
> random order (okay, maybe a little bit scientific).
> Pros/cons:
> DKIM ... it's nasty, e.g. folks using email addresses with strict DKIM
> policies, e.g. like @yahoo.com - that causes significant problems with
> lists.  The older Mailman version on linuxmafia.com suffers the full
> impact of that.  The newer version(s) on the BALUG VM effectively kludge
> around that - notably rewriting of From: header and adding/altering a
> Reply-To: header (which unfortunately clobbers any different existing
> Reply-To: header - but that's still better than not applying such kludges
> for list postings).  The DKIM issues, notably on the older Mailman 2.x
> causes headaches for listadmins - and list members too.
> And seeing how Jim Stockford ain't exactly been up to promptly attending
> to ...
> linuxmafia.com ... just "temporarily" there under good graces of Rick Moen,
> until Jim Stockford properly sets up elsewhere, and that Jim Stockford
> at least reasonably perform the appropriate listadmin duties on it there.
> Uhm, yeah ... while we wait for that ... anyway, could move it.
> If it moves, the URLs to the archived items break.  But that can always
> happen with Mailman version 2.x anyway even if they don't move (and sometimes
> does happen - same URLs end up going to different messages, etc.)
> Oh, in the meantime, if you're looking for more persistence, there's
> The Internet Archive.
> Mailman 3 fixes the above - offering persistent URLs (would still change
> domain with a move, though) ... but ... not goin' to Mailman 3 ... yet,
> but guestimating that happens sooner on the BALUG VM, than on
> linuxmafia.com
> Mailman version 3.x is on the BALUG VM's path ... installed but not yet
> fully configured.  Lists will eventually migrate from 2.x to 3.x ...
> certainly before the host upgrades from Debian 10.x Buster to 11.x Bullseye
> (the latter of which doesn't support Mailman 2.x as that requires Python 2.x
> for which support is going away (already gone from upstream)).
> But also as there are some other lists fairly probable to migrate to the
> BALUG VM that are presently on Mailman 2.x, the BALUG VM will probably
> run Mailman 2.x until those migrations are done (or when it's better to get
> on with migrating to 11.x Bullseye regardless)
> See also:
> https://www.wiki.balug.org/wiki/doku.php?id=buug:start
> https://www.wiki.balug.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bad:start
> [*.]sf-lug.org supports IPv6 & CA signed TLS(/"SSL") cert.  But Mailman
> (at least version 2.x) does stupid insecure stuff with passwords, so never
> think that https will suffice to fully protect 'em (2.x stores them in
> clear text or reversibly encrypted form).  That may be better with
> Mailman 3.x, but haven't checked/confirmed.
> In either case, I expect anyone will be able to have public access to and
> backup the entire list archive (raw mbox format).  linuxmafia.com makes
> that available - both via http and public rsync.  I expect same would be
> made available on the BALUG VM.  Also, newer Mailman on the BALUG VM,
> URL to access that full archive automagically shows, whereas it doesn't
> for the older version on linuxmafia.com.
> As for backing up list membership, I'm presuming the BALUG VM would be set
> up similar to linuxmafia.com - e.g. periodic emailings (I think currently
> it's emailed to Jim Stockford weekly), and also made securely available via
> rsync (encrypted to my key daily, and I daily snag, decrypt, and update
> copy for backup ... which is also on the BALUG VM presently ... also
> use RCS to track changes ... that's what also makes the monthly reports
> with history doable, e.g.:
> http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2021q2/015208.html
> )
> Could provide other secure means to access roster, e.g. sftp, for backup
> purposes.
> Putting all on BALUG VM - more single point of failure (web & list on one
> host).  There are semi-regular backups, and some redundancy (that VM
> semi-regularly live migrates to other physical host).  linuxmafia.com
> is presently running on older hardware.  There's probably some hardware
> redundancy (spare parts), but I'm guestimating a move/repair there due
> to hardware failure would take longer.  Though also I believe there are
> still (longer term?) plans for linuxmafia.com to get virtualized onto
> considerably newer and more supportable hardware.
> Gee, wouldn't something under sf-lug.org domain be more logical?
> Okay, sure, that doesn't require moving ... but were it to use such
> and not move, that's also fair bit more reconfiguration bits on
> linuxmafia.com (and thus yet more burden for those covering that).
> @lists.sf-lug.org?  Why not @sf-lug.org?  Because highly my preference.
> By using separate subdomain - and lists is a pretty logical and commonly
> used one for such, it allows for MTAs for @lists.sf-lug.org and
> @sf-lug.org to be quite separate and independent.  So, if for any reason
> at any time, it's desired to have list traffic and other MTA traffic such
> as webmaster at sf-lug.org be quite independent and separate, that's fully
> doable.  Whereas if list is @sf-lug.org then they're necessarily
> intertwined at MTA at that domain level.  Separating them also allows
> stuff like postmaster at sf-lug.org and postmaster at lists.sf-lug.org to
> not only go separate places, but to be highly independent.  And
> postmaster@ is a required address for any mailing domain.
> ...
> Well, feel free to add pro/con points, questions, whatever.
> And don't forget, (quite unscientific) survey:
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Y8BZZL7

More information about the sf-lug mailing list