On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 07:29:39PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 7:26 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > >> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 2:28 AM Noah Misch <n...@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-b...@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-...@postgresql.org would cause a concrete, user-facing loss in that users replying to old messages would get a bounce. Also, I find pgsql-...@lists.postgresql.org uglier, since "lists" adds negligible information. (The same is true of "pgsql", alas.) If the cost of keeping pgsql-...@postgresql.org is limited to "cruft", I'd prefer to keep pgsql-...@postgresql.org indefinitely. nm
