On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 07:29:39PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 7:26 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > >> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 2:28 AM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > >>> What are those blocked infrastructure improvements?
> >
> > > The specific improvements we're talking about are DKIM/DMARC/SPF, which
> > > is becoming more and more important to making sure that the email from
> > > our lists can actually get through to the subscribers.
> >
> > Certainly those are pretty critical. But can you give us a quick
> > refresher on why dropping the @postgresql.org list aliases is
> > necessary for that? I thought we'd already managed to make the
> > lists compliant with those specs.
>
> I believe it doesn't, as Stephen also agreed with upthread.
>
> We needed to move our *sending* out of the postgresql.org domain in order
> to be able to treat them differently. But there is nothing preventing us
> from receiving to e.g. pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org and internally forward it
> to @lists.postgresql.org, where we then deliver from.
>
> I believe we *can* do the same for all lists, but that part is more a
> matter of cleaning up our infrastructure, which has a fair amount of cruft
> to deal with those things. We have an easy workaround for a couple of lists
> which owuld take only a fairly small amount of traffic over it, but we'd
> like to get rid of the cruft to deal with the large batch of them.
Ceasing to accept mail at pgsql-FOO@postgresql.org would cause a concrete,
user-facing loss in that users replying to old messages would get a bounce.
Also, I find pgsql-FOO@lists.postgresql.org uglier, since "lists" adds
negligible information. (The same is true of "pgsql", alas.) If the cost of
keeping pgsql-FOO@postgresql.org is limited to "cruft", I'd prefer to keep
pgsql-FOO@postgresql.org indefinitely.
nm