James Galvin wrote:
Hi, thanks for the explanation, I add some notes of what
I think this means, please correct me if I got it wrong.
[2418]
| As a service to the community, the IETF Secretariat
| operates a mailing list archive for working group
| mailing lists.
Most lists I submitted to the "other lists" are in fact
former WG lists. I guess there is nothing to do for the
submitter / AD / list owner for former IETF WG lists, the
"official" archives are likely still subscribed.
Today, all lists are created in "ietf.org", unless they
are IAB, IESG, or IRTF lists.
Okay. Existing "other lists" are not necessarily hosted
by ietf.org, they can be anywhere (Harald, IMC, Pobox,
W3C, Google, Yahoo!, etc.)
Last year the IETF did an audit, for the first time in
forever, and brought everything up-to-date. This means
that at that time all the "other lists" had an archive
on the IETF web site.
Great, that should take care of any list I ever submitted
with one or two fresher exceptions.
However, we're out of date again.
Maybe the two archive subscriptions could be added to the
verification procedure. As far as I can tell it the Web
form creates a request to the chosen AD, the AD can then
accept, reject, or ignore it. The accept state could be
split to arrange the archive subscriptions. Lots of fun
there, but there aren't many "other list", and most have
a mailman Web interface.
These archives have a SPAM problem.
Willing to explain the secrets of RFC 4408, but maybe not
again here... :-)
My opinion is that the IETF should just create a mailing
list for every WG and then these "other lists" should
just subscribe the IETF list to their list.
The opposition can then still pretend to send mail from the
old list to the new list, and vice versa. The position of
the gateway on the IETF side (directly above the archives
vs. before the new list) won't necessarily change the spam
problem. If something breaks you have a split, articles
appearing only in the old or new list. A gateway directly
above the archives has the same problem, but archives at
least don't try to post... :-) Or if they apparently post
it must be spam.
Mailman provides some useful built-in features.
Unfortunately it doesn't let me say "for each subscribed
nobody(_at_)xyzzy add a new address jhjhjggjhmgc(_at_)gmail", it also
doesn't let me say "now please consider hmhmdnbdngnf(_at_)gmail
to have write access on all existing lists".
Part of the maintenance problem is that for obscure
reasons the ETF subscriber on these "other lists" will
drop off the list occasionally. I'd be interested in
hearing any good ideas for how to deal with this issue.
Pass. Disable password reminder, maybe ?
The Secretariat has to take action to make these email
addresses work. I realize this is probably obvious to
everyone here, but in the interests of completeness it
should be documented that if you're going to setup an
"other list" you need to ask to have the archives
created.
Certainly not obvious for me, I never did this. I just
filled out the submission form, staying away from using
"<" + ">", because that breaks the "other lists" script.
ADs are annoyed when they have to confirm updates only
because "<" + ">" breaks the "other lists" Web page ;-)
Frank
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf