Is SourceForge still trustworthy enough to host this list?
19 messages, 10 to 11 Jun 2015. Started by xor.
Andy Schroder (6), Troy Benjegerdes (3), Peter Todd (3), Wladimir J. van der Laan (2), Ivan Brightly (2), xor, s7r, Jeff Garzik
TL;DR:
Quoted text (4 lines)
> In 2013, GIMP’s developers pulled the GIMP Windows downloads from > SourceForge. SourceForge was full of misleading advertisements > masquerading as “Download” buttons — something that’s a problem all over > the web.
[...]
Quoted text (4 lines)
> In 2015, SourceForge pushed back. Considering the old GIMP account on > SourceForge “abandoned,” they took control over it, locking out the > original maintainer. They then put GIMP downloads back up on SourceForge, > wrapped in SourceForge’s own junkware-filled installer.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote:
Quoted text (1 line)
> http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/
All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core release announcements for a long time.
No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people can't agree where to move to.
Wladimir
Regarding changing the e-mail list provider. Is anyone interested in sponsoring it? There are non-free options, but it may be difficult to always ensure the fee is being paid to the provider. I think finding an agreeable free solution may have been the issue before? I've also thought of trying to make a pay per message or byte solution (and this cost could be dynamic based upon the number of current mailing list subscribers). This could solve the who pays problem (the sender pays), as well as motivate people to be more concise and clear with their messages, and at the same time limit spam.
Any thoughts?
Andy Schroder
On 06/10/2015 05:35 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote: >> http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/ > All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core release announcements for a long time. > > No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people can't agree where to move to. > > Wladimir > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll sponsor it, if we agree to implement a HashCash spam filter in the next 6 months. I've run mail servers for $DAYJOB for 5 or so years, and I've run my own personal server for the last 14.
Since Bitcoin is a perfectly good HashCash system, I'm thinking a http://www.courier-mta.org/courierfilter.html filter plugin that checks to ensure that the required bitcoin fee has been paid, or better yet included in the message in some standard form.
I'd like to have several other people with linux admin experience also agree to host live mirrors of the list, which could be switched over by whomever controls the relevant MX records for the mail list.
What do you think a reasonable per-message fee should be, such that a couple of independent admins can reasonably expect to be able to pay $250/month each for their time and server hosting/bandwidth costs?
I also think that anyone who's contributed more than say 10 or 15 commits to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors should be excluded from the pay-with-bitcoin filter, as they have paid with code. The rest of us should be paying to distribute and archive their efforts.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:46:49PM -0400, Andy Schroder wrote:
Quoted text (34 lines)
> Regarding changing the e-mail list provider. Is anyone interested in > sponsoring it? There are non-free options, but it may be difficult to > always ensure the fee is being paid to the provider. I think finding an > agreeable free solution may have been the issue before? I've also > thought of trying to make a pay per message or byte solution (and this > cost could be dynamic based upon the number of current mailing list > subscribers). This could solve the who pays problem (the sender pays), > as well as motivate people to be more concise and clear with their > messages, and at the same time limit spam. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Andy Schroder > > On 06/10/2015 05:35 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote: > >> http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/ > > All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core release announcements for a long time. > > > > No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people can't agree where to move to. > > > > Wladimir > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
I like elegant solutions and while eventually I can see a "pay to contribute" service, I don't imagine you'll get consensus in short order.
List provider costs are pretty reasonable, so if that's the hurdle to overcome I'm happy to offer sponsorship.
Ivan Brightly SolidX Partners
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Andy Schroder <info@andyschroder•com> wrote:
Quoted text (42 lines)
> Regarding changing the e-mail list provider. Is anyone interested in > sponsoring it? There are non-free options, but it may be difficult to > always ensure the fee is being paid to the provider. I think finding an > agreeable free solution may have been the issue before? I've also > thought of trying to make a pay per message or byte solution (and this > cost could be dynamic based upon the number of current mailing list > subscribers). This could solve the who pays problem (the sender pays), > as well as motivate people to be more concise and clear with their > messages, and at the same time limit spam. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Andy Schroder > > On 06/10/2015 05:35 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote: > >> > http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/ > > All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from > sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core > release announcements for a long time. > > > > No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The > issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people > can't agree where to move to. > > > > Wladimir > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >
The mail list is public, so it's not like the data on it is somehow sensitive. Sourcefoge is fine, it has a nice web UI where you can browse the message and sort/order them as you want, etc.
Why would you want to move to a paid solution? And why would you want users to have to pay per message? This is the worst idea ever from my point of view. We want to encourage people to join the community, run full nodes, ask questions, come with solutions, ideas for improvements and so on. Everyone should read and write and contribute as much as possible with ideas in debates. You never know who can have bright ideas in some contexts.
Bottom line is so far sourceforge handles the mail lists just fine. I don't see a single advantage another mail list provider / system could offer, except some headache and extra work for migration. The software distribution via sourcefoge was cancelled for obvious reasons which I fully understand and agree to, but it has nothing to do with the mail lists. We have way more important things to brainstorm about.
On 6/10/2015 7:46 PM, Andy Schroder wrote:
Quoted text (35 lines)
> Regarding changing the e-mail list provider. Is anyone interested in > sponsoring it? There are non-free options, but it may be difficult to > always ensure the fee is being paid to the provider. I think finding an > agreeable free solution may have been the issue before? I've also > thought of trying to make a pay per message or byte solution (and this > cost could be dynamic based upon the number of current mailing list > subscribers). This could solve the who pays problem (the sender pays), > as well as motivate people to be more concise and clear with their > messages, and at the same time limit spam. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Andy Schroder > > On 06/10/2015 05:35 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote: >>> http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/ >> All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core release announcements for a long time. >> >> No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people can't agree where to move to. >> >> Wladimir >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >
Hello Troy,
I like the idea of the live mirrors. I'm personally just an amateur at setting up e-mail servers, but the first concern I have is that everyone hosting a mirror may not necessarily use the same SMTP MTA. I personally use postfix, but I'm not sure what most people use.
Some other features I'd like to see required is PGP/MIME support and ensuring that digital signatures are not broken by footers, etc. appended to the bottom of the message by the list. It might be nice to also allow for HTML messages?
Here is a link with some current statistics to get an idea what the load may be. I've been told there are about 1,200 subscribers. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bitcoin.devel
Andy Schroder
On 06/10/2015 02:02 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
Quoted text (57 lines)
> I'll sponsor it, if we agree to implement a HashCash spam filter > in the next 6 months. I've run mail servers for $DAYJOB for 5 or > so years, and I've run my own personal server for the last 14. > > Since Bitcoin is a perfectly good HashCash system, I'm thinking a > http://www.courier-mta.org/courierfilter.html filter plugin that > checks to ensure that the required bitcoin fee has been paid, or > better yet included in the message in some standard form. > > I'd like to have several other people with linux admin experience > also agree to host live mirrors of the list, which could be switched > over by whomever controls the relevant MX records for the mail list. > > What do you think a reasonable per-message fee should be, such that > a couple of independent admins can reasonably expect to be able to > pay $250/month each for their time and server hosting/bandwidth costs? > > I also think that anyone who's contributed more than say 10 or 15 > commits to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors > should be excluded from the pay-with-bitcoin filter, as they have > paid with code. The rest of us should be paying to distribute and > archive their efforts. > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:46:49PM -0400, Andy Schroder wrote: >> Regarding changing the e-mail list provider. Is anyone interested in >> sponsoring it? There are non-free options, but it may be difficult to >> always ensure the fee is being paid to the provider. I think finding an >> agreeable free solution may have been the issue before? I've also >> thought of trying to make a pay per message or byte solution (and this >> cost could be dynamic based upon the number of current mailing list >> subscribers). This could solve the who pays problem (the sender pays), >> as well as motivate people to be more concise and clear with their >> messages, and at the same time limit spam. >> >> >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Andy Schroder >> >> On 06/10/2015 05:35 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote: >>>> http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/ >>> All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core release announcements for a long time. >>> >>> No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people can't agree where to move to. >>> >>> Wladimir >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
I think if the consensus is "pay with commits or pay with bitcoin" we might have a consensus from the people that actually matter very quickly, because they've already paid ;)
My opinion is the most sustainable solution would be to identify a team of admins and use something like Digital Ocean's new team accounts feature and have someone like SolidX contribute funds for the servers and a few hours a week from one of their sysadmins to the team.
I am dubious of most commercial list-as-a-service providers for the same reason I am dubious of sourceforge. Market conditions change and then all of a sudden the fact you're in control of a popular list becomes more valuable than what your customer is paying you to run the list.
If the list provider can actively help out in encouraging read-only mirrors of the list archives, then I think we mitigate the above business risk.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:28:55PM -0400, Ivan Brightly wrote:
Quoted text (59 lines)
> I like elegant solutions and while eventually I can see a "pay to > contribute" service, I don't imagine you'll get consensus in short order. > > List provider costs are pretty reasonable, so if that's the hurdle to > overcome I'm happy to offer sponsorship. > > Ivan Brightly > SolidX Partners > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Andy Schroder <info@andyschroder•com> > wrote: > > > Regarding changing the e-mail list provider. Is anyone interested in > > sponsoring it? There are non-free options, but it may be difficult to > > always ensure the fee is being paid to the provider. I think finding an > > agreeable free solution may have been the issue before? I've also > > thought of trying to make a pay per message or byte solution (and this > > cost could be dynamic based upon the number of current mailing list > > subscribers). This could solve the who pays problem (the sender pays), > > as well as motivate people to be more concise and clear with their > > messages, and at the same time limit spam. > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Andy Schroder > > > > On 06/10/2015 05:35 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote: > > >> > > http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/ > > > All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from > > sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core > > release announcements for a long time. > > > > > > No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The > > issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people > > can't agree where to move to. > > > > > > Wladimir > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > Bitcoin-development mailing list > > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Hello,
A couple of motivations for a mailing list switch:
1. Sometimes the mailing list delays delivery for 10 minutes to several
days.
2. There are usually lots of ads at the footer of the messages. Really
confuses new readers (for me at least), and seems like it really
pollutes such a historical dialog that may be referenced long into
the future. How would it be if the 10 Commandments, Magna Carta,
Bill of Rights, The Sermon on the Mount, or The Gettysburg Address
had ads intertwined within them?
3. Don't think HTML messages are allowed.
4. Seems like digital signatures are always broken on messages because
the list server slightly modifies them (?), so my e-mail client
doesn't verify them all.
Andy Schroder
On 06/10/2015 02:36 PM, s7r wrote:
Quoted text (56 lines)
> The mail list is public, so it's not like the data on it is somehow > sensitive. Sourcefoge is fine, it has a nice web UI where you can browse > the message and sort/order them as you want, etc. > > Why would you want to move to a paid solution? And why would you want > users to have to pay per message? This is the worst idea ever from my > point of view. We want to encourage people to join the community, run > full nodes, ask questions, come with solutions, ideas for improvements > and so on. Everyone should read and write and contribute as much as > possible with ideas in debates. You never know who can have bright ideas > in some contexts. > > Bottom line is so far sourceforge handles the mail lists just fine. I > don't see a single advantage another mail list provider / system could > offer, except some headache and extra work for migration. The software > distribution via sourcefoge was cancelled for obvious reasons which I > fully understand and agree to, but it has nothing to do with the mail > lists. We have way more important things to brainstorm about. > > On 6/10/2015 7:46 PM, Andy Schroder wrote: >> Regarding changing the e-mail list provider. Is anyone interested in >> sponsoring it? There are non-free options, but it may be difficult to >> always ensure the fee is being paid to the provider. I think finding an >> agreeable free solution may have been the issue before? I've also >> thought of trying to make a pay per message or byte solution (and this >> cost could be dynamic based upon the number of current mailing list >> subscribers). This could solve the who pays problem (the sender pays), >> as well as motivate people to be more concise and clear with their >> messages, and at the same time limit spam. >> >> >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Andy Schroder >> >> On 06/10/2015 05:35 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote: >>>> http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/ >>> All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core release announcements for a long time. >>> >>> No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people can't agree where to move to. >>> >>> Wladimir >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> > >
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:59:48PM -0400, Andy Schroder wrote:
Quoted text (13 lines)
> Hello, > > A couple of motivations for a mailing list switch: > > 1. Sometimes the mailing list delays delivery for 10 minutes to several > days. > 2. There are usually lots of ads at the footer of the messages. Really > confuses new readers (for me at least), and seems like it really > pollutes such a historical dialog that may be referenced long into > the future. How would it be if the 10 Commandments, Magna Carta, > Bill of Rights, The Sermon on the Mount, or The Gettysburg Address > had ads intertwined within them? > 3. Don't think HTML messages are allowed.
Please keep it that way; HTML messages have no place on a technical mailing list.
Quoted text (3 lines)
> 4. Seems like digital signatures are always broken on messages because > the list server slightly modifies them (?), so my e-mail client > doesn't verify them all.
What type of digital signatures specifically? What email client?
Andy Schroder
On 06/10/2015 03:03 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
Quoted text (5 lines)
> >> 4. Seems like digital signatures are always broken on messages because >> the list server slightly modifies them (?), so my e-mail client >> doesn't verify them all. > What type of digital signatures specifically? What email client?
I think they are usually PGP/MIME signatures that are not working right. If you'll notice from my e-mail headers:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
"My opinion is the most sustainable solution would be to identify a team of admins and use something like Digital Ocean's new team accounts feature and have someone like SolidX contribute funds for the servers and a few hours a week from one of their sysadmins to the team."
This is a perfectly fine option. Alternatively, if the paid mailing list option is preferred, I'd suggest Intermedia:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:12:02PM -0400, Andy Schroder wrote:
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > Andy Schroder > > On 06/10/2015 03:03 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > >>4. Seems like digital signatures are always broken on messages because > >> the list server slightly modifies them (?), so my e-mail client > >> doesn't verify them all. > >What type of digital signatures specifically? What email client? > > I think they are usually PGP/MIME signatures that are not working > right. If you'll notice from my e-mail headers: > > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 > X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
It might be that Thunderbird doesn't properly handle messages with both signed and unsigned content. I use mutt myself, which handles it just fine. (the sigs on your emails verify just fine for instance)
Andy Schroder
On 06/10/2015 03:20 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:12:02PM -0400, Andy Schroder wrote: >> Andy Schroder >> >> On 06/10/2015 03:03 PM, Peter Todd wrote: >>>> 4. Seems like digital signatures are always broken on messages because >>>> the list server slightly modifies them (?), so my e-mail client >>>> doesn't verify them all. >>> What type of digital signatures specifically? What email client? >> I think they are usually PGP/MIME signatures that are not working >> right. If you'll notice from my e-mail headers: >> >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 >> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 > It might be that Thunderbird doesn't properly handle messages with both > signed and unsigned content. I use mutt myself, which handles it just > fine. (the sigs on your emails verify just fine for instance) >
It's possible that the enigmail extension is not working right, but I was under the impression that it is just feeding data to gpg and then receiving the response back. It's possible that your e-mail you just checked was not sent through mailman since I also replied directly to you explicitly (in which case the message has not been modified) and you probably have the setting in the mailing list set to not send duplicate messages if you are an explicit TO. I just deleted all explicit TOs for this message, so everyone should be receiving it through the mailing list and not directly. Is the signature still valid for you now? I think enigmail can handle messages with some signed and unsigned content, and maybe PGP/MIME inherently does not support this and a mailing list re-writing parts of messages is an expected action? If this message re-writing is an expected action and I'm correct that PGP/MIME does not support partially signed content, then maybe it is just a recommendation for this mailing list to not use PGP/MIME for messages sent to the list?
Can anyone else confirm?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:36:42PM -0400, Andy Schroder wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)
> It's possible that the enigmail extension is not working right, but > I was under the impression that it is just feeding data to gpg and > then receiving the response back. It's possible that your e-mail you > just checked was not sent through mailman since I also replied > directly to you explicitly (in which case the message has not been > modified) and you probably have the setting in the mailing list set > to not send duplicate messages if you are an explicit TO. I just > deleted all explicit TOs for this message, so everyone should be > receiving it through the mailing list and not directly. Is the > signature still valid for you now? I think enigmail can handle
It has perfectly valid signatures, as do your earlier messages to the list.
Quoted text (6 lines)
> messages with some signed and unsigned content, and maybe PGP/MIME > inherently does not support this and a mailing list re-writing parts > of messages is an expected action? If this message re-writing is an > expected action and I'm correct that PGP/MIME does not support > partially signed content, then maybe it is just a recommendation for > this mailing list to not use PGP/MIME for messages sent to the list?
PGP/MIME definitely does support partially signed content.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Andy Schroder <info@andyschroder•com> wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)
> Hello, > > A couple of motivations for a mailing list switch: > > 1. Sometimes the mailing list delays delivery for 10 minutes to > several days. > 2. There are usually lots of ads at the footer of the messages. Really > confuses new readers (for me at least), and seems like it really pollutes > such a historical dialog that may be referenced long into the future. How > would it be if the 10 Commandments, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, The Sermon > on the Mount, or The Gettysburg Address had ads intertwined within them? > 3. Don't think HTML messages are allowed. > 4. Seems like digital signatures are always broken on messages because > the list server slightly modifies them (?), so my e-mail client doesn't > verify them all. > > Not only -- mail header rewrites cause all my emails to go into people's
spam folders, if they were not directly listed in the To/CC headers...
Quoted text (76 lines)
> > 1. > > > > Andy Schroder > > On 06/10/2015 02:36 PM, s7r wrote: > > The mail list is public, so it's not like the data on it is somehow > sensitive. Sourcefoge is fine, it has a nice web UI where you can browse > the message and sort/order them as you want, etc. > > Why would you want to move to a paid solution? And why would you want > users to have to pay per message? This is the worst idea ever from my > point of view. We want to encourage people to join the community, run > full nodes, ask questions, come with solutions, ideas for improvements > and so on. Everyone should read and write and contribute as much as > possible with ideas in debates. You never know who can have bright ideas > in some contexts. > > Bottom line is so far sourceforge handles the mail lists just fine. I > don't see a single advantage another mail list provider / system could > offer, except some headache and extra work for migration. The software > distribution via sourcefoge was cancelled for obvious reasons which I > fully understand and agree to, but it has nothing to do with the mail > lists. We have way more important things to brainstorm about. > > On 6/10/2015 7:46 PM, Andy Schroder wrote: > > Regarding changing the e-mail list provider. Is anyone interested in > sponsoring it? There are non-free options, but it may be difficult to > always ensure the fee is being paid to the provider. I think finding an > agreeable free solution may have been the issue before? I've also > thought of trying to make a pay per message or byte solution (and this > cost could be dynamic based upon the number of current mailing list > subscribers). This could solve the who pays problem (the sender pays), > as well as motivate people to be more concise and clear with their > messages, and at the same time limit spam. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Andy Schroder > > On 06/10/2015 05:35 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote: > > http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/ > > All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core release announcements for a long time. > > No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people can't agree where to move to. > > Wladimir > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing listBitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > >
Hello,
Thanks for testing this clarifying things about PGP/MIME and I apologize for wasting your time with it. It looks like a SPAM filtering service I use is re-writing some parts of some plain text messages with some special/alternate encoding characters (not sure what it really is). Anyway, if I manually export/import a message from gmane (bypassing my e-mail SPAM filter), thunderbird/enigmail is not having problems verifying signatures. I guess I never realized this before because all other signed messages I normally receive are encrypted and the SPAM filter does not mess with non plain text data.
Andy Schroder
On 06/10/2015 03:43 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
Quoted text (22 lines)
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:36:42PM -0400, Andy Schroder wrote: >> It's possible that the enigmail extension is not working right, but >> I was under the impression that it is just feeding data to gpg and >> then receiving the response back. It's possible that your e-mail you >> just checked was not sent through mailman since I also replied >> directly to you explicitly (in which case the message has not been >> modified) and you probably have the setting in the mailing list set >> to not send duplicate messages if you are an explicit TO. I just >> deleted all explicit TOs for this message, so everyone should be >> receiving it through the mailing list and not directly. Is the >> signature still valid for you now? I think enigmail can handle > It has perfectly valid signatures, as do your earlier messages to the > list. > >> messages with some signed and unsigned content, and maybe PGP/MIME >> inherently does not support this and a mailing list re-writing parts >> of messages is an expected action? If this message re-writing is an >> expected action and I'm correct that PGP/MIME does not support >> partially signed content, then maybe it is just a recommendation for >> this mailing list to not use PGP/MIME for messages sent to the list? > PGP/MIME definitely does support partially signed content. >
And just like I did here, if I were a list member with good reputation, and felt like reposting something that did not make it to the list by accident or ommission, or a hashcash posting fee that was too high, it would end up on the list if enough people bothered to read it and either repost, or post the bond to pass the filter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:04:41PM +0000, Patrick Mccorry (PGR) wrote:
Quoted text (115 lines)
> Yeah post back to list - its an interesting response. So members with a good reputation could vote to say if the bond should be returned to the new member. I just wanted to highlight that people who do not commit a lot of code contribute in other, arguably equal ways. > > ________________________________________ > From: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed•org> > Sent: 10 June 2015 19:58 > To: Patrick Mccorry (PGR) > Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Is SourceForge still trustworthy enough to host this list? > > Did you want responses sent back to the list? > > I think, if I had a revenue stream from a pay-to-post list in place, > the first thing I'd do is spend some time on a reputation/'post bond' > interface in which known users with a good reputation could post for > no charge, while if you were unknown or new to the list, you would > need to post a bond. > > If the consensus of the list was that your message was valuable, it > would be broadcast and archived no charge. > > If enough readers thought the message was spam, those readers could > collect the posted bond, thus compensating them for the time wasted > reading said spam. > > I would hope that in such an environment would still work for researchers. > Does this answer your concerns? Should I repost to the list, because > I do think your concern is worth sharing? > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 06:48:29PM +0000, Patrick Mccorry (PGR) wrote: > > What about researchers who do not commit code but help find problems in this space. I don't think a mailing should be a paid for service - as it's difficult to determine who should and should not pay. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On 10 Jun 2015, at 19:45, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed•org> wrote: > > > > > > I'll sponsor it, if we agree to implement a HashCash spam filter > > > in the next 6 months. I've run mail servers for $DAYJOB for 5 or > > > so years, and I've run my own personal server for the last 14. > > > > > > Since Bitcoin is a perfectly good HashCash system, I'm thinking a > > > http://www.courier-mta.org/courierfilter.html filter plugin that > > > checks to ensure that the required bitcoin fee has been paid, or > > > better yet included in the message in some standard form. > > > > > > I'd like to have several other people with linux admin experience > > > also agree to host live mirrors of the list, which could be switched > > > over by whomever controls the relevant MX records for the mail list. > > > > > > What do you think a reasonable per-message fee should be, such that > > > a couple of independent admins can reasonably expect to be able to > > > pay $250/month each for their time and server hosting/bandwidth costs? > > > > > > I also think that anyone who's contributed more than say 10 or 15 > > > commits to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors > > > should be excluded from the pay-with-bitcoin filter, as they have > > > paid with code. The rest of us should be paying to distribute and > > > archive their efforts. > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:46:49PM -0400, Andy Schroder wrote: > > >> Regarding changing the e-mail list provider. Is anyone interested in > > >> sponsoring it? There are non-free options, but it may be difficult to > > >> always ensure the fee is being paid to the provider. I think finding an > > >> agreeable free solution may have been the issue before? I've also > > >> thought of trying to make a pay per message or byte solution (and this > > >> cost could be dynamic based upon the number of current mailing list > > >> subscribers). This could solve the who pays problem (the sender pays), > > >> as well as motivate people to be more concise and clear with their > > >> messages, and at the same time limit spam. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Any thoughts? > > >> > > >> Andy Schroder > > >> > > >>> On 06/10/2015 05:35 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote: > > >>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, xor wrote: > > >>>> http://www.howtogeek.com/218764/warning-don%E2%80%99t-download-software-from-sourceforge-if-you-can-help-it/ > > >>> All our downloads (even old ones) have recently been deleted from sourceforge, for this reason. They haven't been mentioned in Bitcon Core release announcements for a long time. > > >>> > > >>> No opinion on the mailing list. Though I think it's less urgent. The issue of moving the mailinglist has come up before a few times and people can't agree where to move to. > > >>> > > >>> Wladimir > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Bitcoin-development mailing list > > >> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' hozer@hozed•org > > > 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul grid.coop > > > > > > Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, > > > nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Bitcoin-development mailing list > > > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge•net > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' hozer@hozed•org > 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul grid.coop > > Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, > nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:36:23PM +0300, s7r wrote:
Quoted text (18 lines)
> The mail list is public, so it's not like the data on it is somehow > sensitive. Sourcefoge is fine, it has a nice web UI where you can browse > the message and sort/order them as you want, etc. > > Why would you want to move to a paid solution? And why would you want > users to have to pay per message? This is the worst idea ever from my > point of view. We want to encourage people to join the community, run > full nodes, ask questions, come with solutions, ideas for improvements > and so on. Everyone should read and write and contribute as much as > possible with ideas in debates. You never know who can have bright ideas > in some contexts. > > Bottom line is so far sourceforge handles the mail lists just fine. I > don't see a single advantage another mail list provider / system could > offer, except some headache and extra work for migration. The software > distribution via sourcefoge was cancelled for obvious reasons which I > fully understand and agree to, but it has nothing to do with the mail > lists. We have way more important things to brainstorm about.
I completely agree here. I'm not against migration if a much better option comes along, but e.g. paying for another provider sounds like nonsense when sourceforge does this for free (with some minor annoyances - other providers will have their own).
Paying per message is far-fetched, something that could work in economic theory with perfectly spherical people in their perfectly efficient market. In practice the likely result would be a mailing list only used for advertisement and promotion, and technical discussion and release announcements would disappear.
BTW for people that *don't* like sourceforge's web archive UI there are some other options via gmane:
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bitcoin.devel
Wladimir