Re: pgsql: Remove references to Majordomo
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pgsql: Remove references to Majordomo |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevExmE1dUSDUUGgwMsp_z4YwsunHy-qMkv5gnS+ZWaUtzQw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Remove references to Majordomo (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Remove references to Majordomo
Re: pgsql: Remove references to Majordomo |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: