sourceware hardware transition plan, part 1/N

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 08:48:22PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:09:35PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> >> Should we rsync stuff over and then start working on a ezmlm->mailman
>> >> translation?  We'll also likely need to do a lot of work to keep URLs
>> >> correct.
>> >
>> >(My original thought was that the existing mhonarc archives would be
>> >preserved, so existing URLs would stay valid; just new archives would
>> >go to a new http url hierarchy.)
>> 
>> Ah, that would be easier.  So we just have an "old" archive which
>> preserves the old ml and a "new" one.
>> 
>> So, would it make sense to populate the new archive with old content too
>> just for consistency?  We'd have duplicate content but it seems like it
>> would be less confusing to end users.
>
>It would be less confusing, avoid URL instability if we ever again in 
>future wish to remove a message from the archives and preserve useful 
>features such as raw versions of messages just to keep using mhonarc with 
>the same URL structure as now, and make any mailman/pipermail URLs 
>redirect to the /ml/ mhonarc ones so noone ever accesses a message via 
>them.  As far as I know mhonarc is maintained.
>
>> I chatted with Ian about this on irc.  The problem with ezmlm and qmail
>> is that they are not maintained and, so, are unaware of new standards
>> like DKIM.
>
>Does ezmlm actually do any of the sort of changes to messages that would 
>break DKIM?

Ian had to add patches to qmail (or maybe it was ezmlm) for DKIM
recently because mail from sourceware was being treated as spam.  So
that's actually one of the examples of what it means for these tools to
be unsupported.

cgf