[sf-lug] SF-LUG list (etc.) hosting: Re: Belated writeup of last SF-LUG meeting

[Michael Paoli]

I'd also offered before, if SF-LUG wants to move the list hosting to
same VM where the SF-LUG web site is, I could always quite easily
accommodate that.

Also, regardless of where the list is hosted, could always reconfigure
things such that list could use the sf-lug.org domain - and no, can't do
that by just tossing e-mail traffic under such domain to existing
list hosting and just expect it to work with zero changes on server
side (some have foolishly tried things of that nature).

Oh, and do also be cautioned - effectively and usefully sending email /
list traffic to The Internet (as in actual landing in "inbox" rather
than being rejected or landing in spam/junk/bulk or the like) is quite
non-trivial.  Also dealing with incoming spam can be quite the challenge
... though that's comparatively much simpler to effectively deal with.

Also, volunteers - could always use more of that ... e.g. for
(additional) backups and/or redundant hosting, etc.  Is that crickets I
hear again?

Anyway, list hosting ... y'all's call.  Can be pretty much wherever you
want.  But do also realize at present:
The existing is quite independent of web site (for better and/or worse).
There's lots of existing infrastructure that, e.g. not only fully and
separately backs up the list and other relevant critical bits
(automagically daily, and reporting on list stats monthly), but that also
makes that list data available for anyone(!) to back up!  (Takers,
anyone ... or more crickets?).  And, of course, if one willy nilly goes
moving the list around, and nobody volunteers to cover all those other
bits, well, then it means most or all those other advantages go bye-bye.

Really can even do web site hosting, etc. elsewhere if you want.
And yes, existing has backups and off-site backups, etc.  Lots of stuff
already quite well covered ... but more (e.g. redundancy) could always
be better.

Similar can even be said of DNS - though some bits of that would require
at least a bit more coordination to set up ... though there already
exist multiple folks that have DNS access to make most any and all
relevant DNS changes for SF-LUG.

But also, be careful what you wish for ... you may get it.  ;-)

And ... not that what you may be proposing or thinking of would be bad,
but ... there's also no shortage of LUGs that have mismanaged sites
and/or lists, etc. and have had various non-trivial problems.  So ...
choose wisely.  :-)

And yes, also great opportunity for folks to learn, get more relevant
hands-on experience, etc.  But we don't seem to be able to get
volunteers that can actually manage to do things like change content of
the web page (fair number have volunteered and have access, but to
actually use that access to make any changes is a totally different
matter).  And ... stuff like migrating and setting up list and hosting
and managing thereof ... that's quite a bit less trivial by comparison.
So, forgive me if I may be just a wee bit skeptical.  I'd love to be
well proven wrong!  :-)

On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 12:40 PM Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>
> Quoting aaronco36 (aaronco36 at sdf.org):
>
> > Ken was wondering if an Intel Compute Stick with an Atom quad core
> > CPU Z3735F (1GB mem, 1GB swap compressed, 5GB root, 64GB mounted
> > micro SD) could possibly handle hosting requirements for the SF-LUG
> > mailing list.
>
> Yes.  Sure could, easily.  Go for it.  FAFO.
>
> The 1990s server that I retired on Sunday had far less grunt than that,
> e.g., only half that much total RAM, and, believe me, it ran a whole lot
> more than one mailing list.  (Except, the server had actual suitable
> mass storage, as does the new one.)
>
> Of course, the harder part is server administration and configuration,
> so I advise playing around before migration.  But, hey, SF-LUG
> has the cumulative postings archive and membership roster, and is
> welcome to run its own mailing list server any time.