Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list

Andrew Sullivan <> Fri, 01 October 2010 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7FA3A6DA8; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.017
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.582, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XCvcChm7jk5P; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B973A6D70; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P1k49-000Edm-Of for; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:10:41 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P1k46-000EYy-8V for; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:10:38 +0000
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10DED1ECB408; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:10:12 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:10:10 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
To: Edward Lewis <>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <a06240802c8cbcfb730dd@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a06240802c8cbcfb730dd@[]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <>

On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 01:53:32PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Why over engineer?  What's wrong with the current set up?

The reasons to move the list we outlined some time ago, but it comes
down to the following:

- the list is hosted on a machine with volunteer admins

- it uses majordomo, the administration of which effectively requires
  shell access (so we need administrators to be available, and they're
  not always)

We've had several cases in the past where it has been difficult to
solve a problem because nobody with shell access was available to fix
it.  Moreover, certain things that are easy with mailman are hard with
majordomo.  Finally, the spam filtering on the ietf-managed list
systems seems to be a little bit better (there's a lot of spam in the
moderation queue).  Finally, adding people to the whitelist for the
list is one of those things that requires shell access, but I
understand IETF whitelists are linked across lists.

> I'm not overly wedded to or sentimental about the name "namedroppers"  
> but why change from it?

Since the mail list name has to change anyway (we're moving from in any case), I figured it would be as well to conform to
the IETF convention for this.  But I've asked the ADs whether it's ok
to violate that convention.  One of them has already said he doesn't
care much.


Andrew Sullivan
Shinkuro, Inc.