Обсуждение: admins@postgresql.org mailing list?
Guys, I know, I know, the last thing we need is another mailing list. HOWEVER, we have had a request from a couple of current web hosts (Sean and one other) and alternates for various postgresql.org sites that we establish a closed mailing list exclusively for those who own boxes that host postgresql.org stuff, or who have admin rights on them. The reason this has been requested is that these host donors don't want to subscribe to pgsql-www, because they don't care about web development. Further, the subscription address list would be automatically echoed to a non-postgresql.org mailserver somewhere, so that it can be used to coordinate in the event of a general network failure like last week's. I know this sounds similar to what Devrim proposed a few months ago, but this would be a bit different. For one, it would not concern web site development *at all*, which would still happen on this list. It would instead be devoted exclusively to "Server A is down, who can take the list archives?" and "Hub.org is going down at 5pm to relocate, switching over to alternate DNS" type messages. Also exchanging passwords and setup info, necessitating a closed, non-archived list. Does this seem like a good idea? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus > Sent: 14 December 2004 07:15 > To: PostgreSQL WWW Mailing List > Subject: [pgsql-www] admins@postgresql.org mailing list? > > Guys, > > I know, I know, the last thing we need is another mailing > list. HOWEVER, we have had a request from a couple of > current web hosts (Sean and one other) and alternates for > various postgresql.org sites that we establish a closed > mailing list exclusively for those who own boxes that host > postgresql.org stuff, or who have admin rights on them. OK. Though as I said to Devrim (who I thought had actually proposed exactly the same thing <grin>), I think we will end up getting grief for it again, like we did when www was closed no matter how legitimate the reasons. > The reason this has been requested is that these host donors > don't want to subscribe to pgsql-www, because they don't care > about web development. > Further, the subscription address list would be automatically > echoed to a non-postgresql.org mailserver somewhere, so that > it can be used to coordinate in the event of a general > network failure like last week's. You know how to do this? I've been looking at it for the main lists and haven't found any way to have a second server. > I know this sounds similar to what Devrim proposed a few > months ago, but this > would be a bit different. For one, it would not concern web site > development *at all*, which would still happen on this list. > It would instead be devoted exclusively to "Server A is down, > who can take the list archives?" and "Hub.org is going down > at 5pm to relocate, switching over to alternate DNS" type > messages. Also exchanging passwords and setup info, > necessitating a closed, non-archived list. > > Does this seem like a good idea? Exchanging passwords should be done in private email, with the username & hostname *never* appearing in the same message as the password imho. A list is definitely not the place for that sort of thing. BTW, I am working on preparing some DR documentation that will list all our servers, who has physical access to them, who are the project admins and what are all their contact details etc. As part of that I will also be looking to make sure there are at least two or three people with admin rights on every box so we can move anything, anywhere should the need arise. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated :-) Regards, Dave
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Further, the subscription address list would be automatically echoed to a
> non-postgresql.org mailserver somewhere, so that it can be used to coordinate
> in the event of a general network failure like last week's.
I'd suggest that the admins list be hosted by a non-postgresql.org site
in the first place. ISTM that its prime reason for being would be to
coordinate disaster responses. For that purpose, you'd be better off
not having to jump that first hurdle of relocating the list before you
can do anything useful. So: don't share mail server, don't share DNS,
don't live in the same part of the world.
regards, tom lane
> Guys, > > I know, I know, the last thing we need is another mailing > list. HOWEVER, we have had a request from a couple of > current web hosts (Sean and one other) and alternates for > various postgresql.org sites that we establish a closed > mailing list exclusively for those who own boxes that host > postgresql.org stuff, or who have admin rights on them. Why make it closed? There may be lots of other people interested in that kind of information. Maybe closed-post, but consider at least letting others read it. > The reason this has been requested is that these host donors > don't want to subscribe to pgsql-www, because they don't care > about web development. > Further, the subscription address list would be automatically > echoed to a non-postgresql.org mailserver somewhere, so that > it can be used to coordinate in the event of a general > network failure like last week's. If you can solve the replication of subscription lists, why not do it for *all* the mailinglists? They are, after all, one of the most important things in the community today. (And does this have to be hard? If it's in postgresql, set up some nifty slony replication. If it's just in flat files, can't they just be rsynced over? IMO you wouldn't need to duplicate the subscription interface, just the ability to post and receive from the lists. It certainly could be done - I did it with some lists many years back by just scp:ing the files over. But perhaps the requirements have changed since then, and something more is required?) > I know this sounds similar to what Devrim proposed a few > months ago, but this > would be a bit different. For one, it would not concern web site > development *at all*, which would still happen on this list. > It would instead be devoted exclusively to "Server A is down, > who can take the list archives?" and "Hub.org is going down > at 5pm to relocate, switching over to alternate DNS" type > messages. Also exchanging passwords and setup info, > necessitating a closed, non-archived list. > > Does this seem like a good idea? Exchanging passwords on a mailinglist seems like a very bad idea at all to me ;-) Having some way of getting information out when things like this happens sounds like a very good idea. They don't happen often, but when they do, getting the information out is important. //Magnus
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Dave Page wrote: > You know how to do this? I've been looking at it for the main lists and > haven't found any way to have a second server. Actually, there was code added to Majordomo that is supposed to allow for this, based on some requirements that John had for the forums ... I've never used it, mind you, so don't know all that is involved in setting it up ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Magnus Hagander wrote: > (And does this have to be hard? If it's in postgresql, set up some nifty > slony replication. If it's just in flat files, can't they just be > rsynced over? IMO you wouldn't need to duplicate the subscription > interface, just the ability to post and receive from the lists. It > certainly could be done - I did it with some lists many years back by > just scp:ing the files over. But perhaps the requirements have changed > since then, and something more is required?) This is already being done to one server, and we are workign on setting this up to a second, more frequently updated, server in Austria ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I know, I know, the last thing we need is another mailing list. HOWEVER, we
> have had a request from a couple of current web hosts (Sean and one other)
> and alternates for various postgresql.org sites that we establish a closed
> mailing list exclusively for those who own boxes that host postgresql.org
> stuff, or who have admin rights on them.
>
> The reason this has been requested is that these host donors don't want to
> subscribe to pgsql-www, because they don't care about web development.
> Further, the subscription address list would be automatically echoed to a
> non-postgresql.org mailserver somewhere, so that it can be used to coordinate
> in the event of a general network failure like last week's.
>
> I know this sounds similar to what Devrim proposed a few months ago, but this
> would be a bit different.
Just a * :) *
A seperate, maybe unlogged list was a must, and I'm happy to hear about
it at last :)
Regards,
- --
Devrim GUNDUZ
devrim~gunduz.org devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.tdmsoft.com
http://www.gunduz.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBv4Cxtl86P3SPfQ4RAvriAKDY9mvsnSFYR1T+AmF2ucQWBj4d0ACg2xPh
MrzKv+fLXTwDaXmmEx6MoTw=
=meg7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Dave Page wrote:
>> Further, the subscription address list would be automatically
>> echoed to a non-postgresql.org mailserver somewhere, so that
>> it can be used to coordinate in the event of a general
>> network failure like last week's.
>
> You know how to do this? I've been looking at it for the main lists and
> haven't found any way to have a second server.
* We could rsync the subscriber list. (for any @PostgreSQL.org lists)
* ... since I think the subscriber list of admins@PostgreSQL.org list
will not change day by day, we can mirror the users by hand.
>> I know this sounds similar to what Devrim proposed a few
>> months ago, but this
>> would be a bit different. For one, it would not concern web site
>> development *at all*, which would still happen on this list.
>> It would instead be devoted exclusively to "Server A is down,
>> who can take the list archives?" and "Hub.org is going down
>> at 5pm to relocate, switching over to alternate DNS" type
>> messages. Also exchanging passwords and setup info,
>> necessitating a closed, non-archived list.
>>
>> Does this seem like a good idea?
>
> Exchanging passwords should be done in private email, with the username
> & hostname *never* appearing in the same message as the password imho. A
> list is definitely not the place for that sort of thing.
IMHO using PGP should be a must for all subscribers. If someones sends a
password to another, he/she will sign+encrpyt the e-mail with the
receiver's key so that only the receiver can read the e-mail.
Regards,
- --
Devrim GUNDUZ
devrim~gunduz.org devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.tdmsoft.com
http://www.gunduz.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBv4Kotl86P3SPfQ4RAtcWAJ9Qn4JRpET5zWCbdYXgZjCWLYNFSgCgsVh5
pVfVViw2wj8UhRioztKrhmM=
=d1B8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Devrim, > A seperate, maybe unlogged list was a must, and I'm happy to hear about > it at last :) Why? You don't wanna talk about web site development stuff, either? ;-) -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> A seperate, maybe unlogged list was a must, and I'm happy to hear about
>> it at last :)
>
> Why? You don't wanna talk about web site development stuff, either? ;-)
hehe...:)
- --
Devrim GUNDUZ
devrim~gunduz.org devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.tdmsoft.com
http://www.gunduz.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBwBrUtl86P3SPfQ4RAqKBAKDMxMG28fBXdWAouNteih01V22wwQCg6Pdn
mpdNDnVj2rEq3u0l4UWGZPg=
=Cior
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----