[Novalug] Replies to firemountain

Peter Larsen peter@peterlarsen.org
Tue Aug 5 02:31:30 EDT 2014


Hello Rich,
I've been thinking quite a bit on how or even if I should reply to this
message. Before you read the actual mail, I would like to extend my
thanks and appreciation for standing up to help the NovaLug group with a
very vital tool in a working state. So thank you for volunteering time
and effort to make it work.

On 08/04/2014 11:15 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> 1. Every mailing list is supposed to have a -owner role address which
> goes to the human(s) running it.  The (new) novalug list does, and
> that's where everything having to do with configuration or operational
> issues should be directed.  (This (old) novalug list might too; I just
> haven't had occasion to check.)  Also, per RFC 2142 among others, the
> "postmaster" address exists, which is a good place to direct general
> mail system issues.

Sure - and postmaster@calypso ends in my inbox. This should be handled
by any default setup of mailing lists using mailman. It's part of the
process of setting up a list to indicate an address for the owner of the
list. For fredlug the owner is me - albeit in the 2-3 years we've been
on Calypso I've NEVER had anyone write me on that address. If your point
is, that we should be using that address instead of NovaLug mailing
list, I think we've found a fundamental difference in approach. In all
the time I've been on the novalug mailing list, I've NEVER seen the need
for a "manager" to stand up. I think I can count on my hand how often
Greg (the owner) has had to do administrative things to the list and
I've never seen him having to moderate anything. All debate and issues
about the mailing list have been discussed in the open, including
problems. It seems a bit of a step backwards to me to keep general
technical inquires private - to me it's very opposite to Open Source
principles.

By that I don't mean the list should be flooded with personal messages.
But it actually makes a lot of sense that everyone can see what's going
on; that an issue is shared by others etc - instead of keeping it all
hidden away

> 2. There are approximately 110 settings in the Mailman config file
> for novalug.  I'm not going to get into a debate over every single
> one of them, because I don't have the time.

I would agree with that. But that doesn't mean a few vital ones
shouldn't be up for debate?

>   I've already spent *way*
> too many lines here explaining the contemporary reality of part of the
> spam environment, and I'm a little preoccupied just now trying to make
> sure everyone can subscribe, dropping exceptions into the sendmail access
> file for sending hosts with broken DNS/rDNS, deleting test messages sent
> to the entire list after I said never to do that, scanning the reject
> log for subscription attempts that banged into anti-spam rulesets, and
> so on. 

It's an ungrateful job - I agree. However, you're not helping yourself
by putting the whole list on "moderation" requiring you to white wash
every post as if we didn't know how to post? Under TUX the list was
self-managed. Never the need for moderation or banning. And all of a
sudden - how we're all being moderated?  As for test messages - when
mails aren't coming through due to being hold up in moderation until you
can spare some time, you're only going to get more of them as people
retry. I'm not sure what the point of blocking a test message is -
getting a few mails as people join so we can see who came over, would
benefit everyone. Don't call it "test" - call it "announcements" - it
will serve the same purpose. And you'll not have to spend your time
trying to moderate and approve every post to the list. I really cannot
see how a simple "does this work" message disrupts anything?  Once the
list is running, we'll return to the state of the old list where test
messages are very rare and without moderation.

I really appreciate that we have someone like you with deep experience
in managing spam settings sendmail. I would however like to point out,
that if it means you have to spend hours a day or week on managing the
list, it will most likely end up as a disservice to us all (particulary
you)  if the list cannot operate without manual intervention from the
list administrator. Personally, I was about to give up until I guess you
released my address and I got a flood of messages (I don't mind the
flood - but the silence before it is another matter). To me, strict
management and white listing will end up as a disservice as it will slow
the list or at worst even halt it.

>  Shorter version: if you want to argue with me, you're going to
> have to wait.

I hope this doesn't mean you're not open to debate? I'm all with you,
that because it's your time and resources, you have the most say in how
things are run - but without active members there wouldn't be the need
for a mailing list in the first place, so we should have at least the
right to ask/suggest changes?

> (Don't worry.  I like arguing.  Just not now.)

The issue is that "now" things weren't working for us. And that makes us
doubt that things will work in the end, and it increases the "arguing"
and suggestions from everyone.

> 3. As I said on-list earlier, I have the hold-all-messages-for-moderation
> flag set, because I was trying to hold traffic until everyone (or mostly
> everyone) was subscribed.

I have a hard time understanding this argument. Had I seen messages come
through right away I wouldn't have doubted my subscription status or
even participated in that thread discussion. As I mentioned earlier,
I've never seen the NovaLug list under moderation before - EVER. So this
is very new and uncomfortable to me.

>   But I've let some traffic through because if
> I keep it queued *too* long, some recipient mail systems will reject
> it because the timestamp will be too old. 

This should be handled by sendmail. It can be set to prevent too long
bursts of mails. But I cannot help noticing that it's a problem by
design? If there hadn't been moderation to begin with there wouldn't
have been an issue of too long a queue?

>  So I'm currently splitting
> the difference.  Thus if you subscribed after the last time I opened
> the floodgates, you won't get anything until the next time.  Once we
> get past this transition, this problem/annoyance will evaporate.

I assume that past the transition there will be no more moderation? Or
is that a permanent setting?

> 4. This is not my first day on the job.

Agreed - and your time is MUCH appreciated. But I cannot help seeing
this list being setup to overwhelm you with unnecessary tasks?

>   So if you see something that
> isn't what you'd expect, it's possible (gasp!) that I made a mistake.
> It's also possible that it's that way for a very good reason.  You might
> want to ask (hint: -owner address) about the latter before you conclude
> the former.

If you allow me to paraphrase: Please include -owner in the cc: when you
have issues with the list and don't presume you need to be taught how to
run a mail server? I don't see anything wrong with that statement. But I
do want to object if you are suggesting we keep discussion about the
mailing list OFF the list. And if people aren't respecting your
knowledge and time in how they address you, that is a problem. The tone
is 99% of all posts to the list I read is always cordial and pleasant.
I've tried to be constructive and not confrontational. If I'm wrong in
my presumption that the list will remain moderated I'll be very happy to
learn I'm wrong. Otherwise, I've tried to express my concern about the
development and future of the list.

-- 
Regards
  Peter Larsen




More information about the Novalug mailing list