[llvm-dev] LLVM Infrastructure Changes - Moving to Discourse

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

LLVM Community,

I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/

I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html

If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.

Thanks,
Tanya
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm...@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

[Tobias Hieta via llvm-dev]

Hi,

I am sure there will be quite a bit of push-back for this.  But I just wanted to chime in and say that I so glad to move away from email.

Thanks to the IWG for their work!

-- Tobias. 

--

Tobias Hieta
http://about.me/thieta

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

On Jan 8, 2022, at 7:54 AM, Tobias Hieta via llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am sure there will be quite a bit of push-back for this. But I just wanted to chime in and say that I so glad to move away from email.
>
> Thanks to the IWG for their work!

Seconded - infrastructure changes like this take a tremendous amount of planning and execution work. Thank you to the IWG and everyone else who is working to improve the LLVM community!

-Chris

[James Henderson via llvm-dev]

Hi,

I personally don't really have any particular opinion on moving to Discourse, versus staying on mailing lists (if pushed, my naturally conservative mindset would say stay/use mailman 3 as discussed before, but I'd probably adapt to a switch quickly enough). However, I do have some related concerns to do with the process in particular:

1) Regarding this paragraph in the blog:

"The majority of the community was in favor of the move when the move to Discourse was discussed extensively on the LLVM mailing lists. This provides the features mentioned above in addition to a more modern communication. We did hear of one feature some would miss compared to Mailman: the ability to reply to someone directly through email. However, while it may not be ideal for some, we feel this is a worthwhile tradeoff to gain the other benefits, e.g. better safety for LLVM developers and users in general."

I skimmed the most recent thread on this topic from the middle of last year, and the distinct impression I got was that the majority opinion, or at least about half of those posting were actually against any move to Discourse, with several raised concerns that I never saw addressed (topics about accessibility and disagreements from existing moderators to the point about moderation being a problem on mailman being two examples). I haven't gone over the thread which originally introduced Discourse back in 2019, so I can't say what happened there. Was this majority reached in the 2019 thread, because my memory of it was that there was no clear consensus in either direction?

2) Also from the above paragraph: who is "we" in "we feel this is a worthwhile tradeoff"? If referring to a specific subgroup (e.g. the IWG/the board), were these concerns actually discussed with the people who raised the concerns? If not, this seems to me like a case of "others don't agree with us, but we're going to ignore their concerns and go ahead with what we (i.e. the IWG/the board etc) want to do" which isn't how community consensus works...

3) The category structure: "January 7-9 - Re-configure the existing LLVM Discourse to the new category/subcategory structure (see below)"

When was this structure discussed? Note that the mailing list announcement came AFTER this point of time had started, meaning there was zero opportunity for people like myself who have concerns with the category breakdown to raise them and suggest improvements. Contrast this with the Github Issues migration, where I was able to get additional categories added to the list of labels, to reflect the pre-existing bugzilla breakdown, and how I used this.

Three particular categories of topics that aren't reflected in the breakdown are a) debug information, b) LLVM tools like llvm-readelf, llvm-objdump, yaml2obj etc, c) testing infrastructure, i.e. lit, FileCheck etc.

4) The timeline: "January 10-20 (sometime during these 2 weeks) - The LLVM mailing list archives are migrated to Discourse and it is sanity checked by volunteers of the LLVM community. This sanity check can take a week or more." and "We encourage all LLVM community members to start using Discourse on Jan 10th to minimize any disruption once the mailing lists become read only and the final messages are merged to Discourse"

Given that this timeline starts today, and was only announced over the weekend (my time), there is zero opportunity for anybody to raise concerns or points, made worse by the fact that many community members might be off for a couple of weeks without any idea this is going on. This timeline should have been at a minimum 2-3 weeks after announcing it before it even begins. Again, contrast this with the recent bugzilla migration, where there were plenty of opportunities for others to raise feedback, and time to address them, before the migration even started. The 1st of February is the earliest any of this should have been starting, in my opinion, not the final cut-off!

James

[Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 07:19, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>

> LLVM Community,
>
> I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
> https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/
>
> I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
> https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html
>
> If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.

One quick question about the new categories/subcategories - where do
you think it would be most appropriate to post issues of LLVM Weekly?

Thanks,

Alex

[Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev]

I hope it goes through.  I’m tired of using email.  Thanks for all the work!

 

--

Krzysztof Parzyszek  kpar...@quicinc.com   AI tools development

 

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev...@lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Tobias Hieta via llvm-dev
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 9:54 AM
To: Tanya Lattner <tanyal...@llvm.org>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVM Infrastructure Changes - Moving to Discourse

 

WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.

[Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev]

On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 8:19 AM Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> LLVM Community,
>
> I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
> https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/
>
> I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
> https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html
>
> If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.

My only real concern was this part of the blog post:

"The mailman archives on the LLVM server may eventually be removed,
but there is no final decision or deadline on this yet."

I hope that doesn't happen, as it would break a lot of links into the
archives, and I think preserving the history of the project is
important. Since it would just be static content at that point,
hopefully hosting it is worth the effort.

- Hans

[Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev]

From the blog post:

"Fully supported Email interface - Discourse supports the ability to
interact through email if you do not like to use the web or app interfaces."

From the Migration Guide:

"*TODO:* Creating new topics via email is supported
<https://meta.discourse.org/t/start-a-new-topic-via-email/62977> but not
configured at the moment. We would need to set up an email address per
category and give Discourse POP3 access to that email account. This
sounds like a solvable issue."

Seeing those two, which relate to the question I asked in June last year
[0], I was wondering if this means I cannot actually stay with email if
I ever want to start a thread/topic. Maybe the information above is
outdated but as we are "moving now" it might be good to actually have
that ability for the few of us that are not yet tired of email.

Thanks,
  Johannes

[0]
https://llvm.discourse.group/t/discourse-as-mailing-list-replacement-some-questions/3713

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

Answers below.

On Jan 10, 2022, at 1:47 AM, James Henderson <jh737...@my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

Hi,

I personally don't really have any particular opinion on moving to Discourse, versus staying on mailing lists (if pushed, my naturally conservative mindset would say stay/use mailman 3 as discussed before, but I'd probably adapt to a switch quickly enough). However, I do have some related concerns to do with the process in particular:

1) Regarding this paragraph in the blog:

"The majority of the community was in favor of the move when the move to Discourse was discussed extensively on the LLVM mailing lists. This provides the features mentioned above in addition to a more modern communication. We did hear of one feature some would miss compared to Mailman: the ability to reply to someone directly through email. However, while it may not be ideal for some, we feel this is a worthwhile tradeoff to gain the other benefits, e.g. better safety for LLVM developers and users in general."

I skimmed the most recent thread on this topic from the middle of last year, and the distinct impression I got was that the majority opinion, or at least about half of those posting were actually against any move to Discourse, with several raised concerns that I never saw addressed (topics about accessibility and disagreements from existing moderators to the point about moderation being a problem on mailman being two examples). I haven't gone over the thread which originally introduced Discourse back in 2019, so I can't say what happened there. Was this majority reached in the 2019 thread, because my memory of it was that there was no clear consensus in either direction?

There have been many discussions regarding Discourse over the last 2+ years. Some of these occurred on the mailing list, some in round tables or workshops, in the IWG, and some 1-1 with individuals. It was from all of these data points that it was concluded the majority was in favor.

2) Also from the above paragraph: who is "we" in "we feel this is a worthwhile tradeoff"? If referring to a specific subgroup (e.g. the IWG/the board), were these concerns actually discussed with the people who raised the concerns? If not, this seems to me like a case of "others don't agree with us, but we're going to ignore their concerns and go ahead with what we (i.e. the IWG/the board etc) want to do" which isn't how community consensus works...

We -> LLVM Foundation

Individuals can be reached via private message on Discourse so the ability to reach someone privately and directly still exists. However,you won’t be able to get that person’s direct email address.  There are tradeoffs in any decision and while we try really hard to make sure everyone is happy, unfortunately some may not be. I don’t think that means the concern was ignored, but it was determined not to be a blocker. 

3) The category structure: "January 7-9 - Re-configure the existing LLVM Discourse to the new category/subcategory structure (see below)"

When was this structure discussed? Note that the mailing list announcement came AFTER this point of time had started, meaning there was zero opportunity for people like myself who have concerns with the category breakdown to raise them and suggest improvements. Contrast this with the Github Issues migration, where I was able to get additional categories added to the list of labels, to reflect the pre-existing bugzilla breakdown, and how I used this.

Three particular categories of topics that aren't reflected in the breakdown are a) debug information, b) LLVM tools like llvm-readelf, llvm-objdump, yaml2obj etc, c) testing infrastructure, i.e. lit, FileCheck etc.

The categories were discussed in the IWG. The nice thing about Discourse is that things are not set in stone and we can move messages around and create/delete/reorganize categories as needed. If you would like to suggest a new category, please file a GitHub issue in the llvm-project. 

4) The timeline: "January 10-20 (sometime during these 2 weeks) - The LLVM mailing list archives are migrated to Discourse and it is sanity checked by volunteers of the LLVM community. This sanity check can take a week or more." and "We encourage all LLVM community members to start using Discourse on Jan 10th to minimize any disruption once the mailing lists become read only and the final messages are merged to Discourse"

Given that this timeline starts today, and was only announced over the weekend (my time), there is zero opportunity for anybody to raise concerns or points, made worse by the fact that many community members might be off for a couple of weeks without any idea this is going on. This timeline should have been at a minimum 2-3 weeks after announcing it before it even begins. Again, contrast this with the recent bugzilla migration, where there were plenty of opportunities for others to raise feedback, and time to address them, before the migration even started. The 1st of February is the earliest any of this should have been starting, in my opinion, not the final cut-off!

It is just a suggestion. You can choose to wait until Feb 1st to use Discourse if you wish (which is 3 weeks away). There might be some downtime for threads that have not been merged over yet.

Thanks,

Tanya

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Jan 10, 2022, at 2:23 AM, Alex Bradbury <a...@asbradbury.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 07:19, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> LLVM Community,
>>
>> I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
>> https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/
>>
>> I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
>> https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html
>>
>> If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.
>
> One quick question about the new categories/subcategories - where do
> you think it would be most appropriate to post issues of LLVM Weekly?

I am thinking that it should be it’s own top level category. I would imagine that some people may only want to subscribe to that category to get LLVM Weekly directly in their inbox. I also thought about as a sub-category for Announcements, but it might be too high volume for that category. What do you think?

-Tanya

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

On Jan 10, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Hans Wennborg <ha...@chromium.org> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 8:19 AM Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

LLVM Community,

I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/

I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html

If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.

My only real concern was this part of the blog post:

"The mailman archives on the LLVM server may eventually be removed,
but there is no final decision or deadline on this yet."

I hope that doesn't happen, as it would break a lot of links into the
archives, and I think preserving the history of the project is
important. Since it would just be static content at that point,
hopefully hosting it is worth the effort.

I see no reason to remove them right now and we may never have a reason. It's just disk space on a server.  This would for sure be discussed in detail to understand the ramifications of it before a change was made. I think I was just trying to avoid saying we would never remove them… because I didn’t want that set in stone either. 

-Tanya

- Hans

[Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski via llvm-dev]

I am thinking that it should be it’s own top level category. I would imagine that some people may only want to subscribe to that category to get LLVM Weekly directly in their inbox. I also thought about as a sub-category for Announcements, but it might be too high volume for that category. What do you think?

A sub-category for LLVM Weekly and other newsletters sounds like a good idea to me.

[Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 at 18:36, Tanya Lattner <tanyal...@llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 2022, at 2:23 AM, Alex Bradbury <a...@asbradbury.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 07:19, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> > <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> LLVM Community,
> >>
> >> I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
> >> https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/
> >>
> >> I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
> >> https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html
> >>
> >> If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.
> >
> > One quick question about the new categories/subcategories - where do
> > you think it would be most appropriate to post issues of LLVM Weekly?
>
> I am thinking that it should be it’s own top level category. I would imagine that some people may only want to subscribe to that category to get LLVM Weekly directly in their inbox. I also thought about as a sub-category for Announcements, but it might be too high volume for that category. What do you think?

I'm not overly familiar with how people typically use the
categories/subcategories on Discourse, but I also might have guessed
that once a week is more frequent than people would typically expect
for "announcements". A sub-category for newsletters makes sense to me.

Best,

[James Henderson via llvm-dev]

Thanks Tanya. I've created an issue (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53122) for suggesting the three new topics.

Regards,

James

[Kiran Chandramohan via llvm-dev]

Hello all,

Having used discourse for interacting with the MLIR community, I find discourse useful and support this transition.

I have a couple of points,

1. It is mentioned that the current mailing list contents will be moved to discourse. Is there a plan to match the mails of a person with their account in discourse (assuming the person already has posts in discourse and mails in the mailing list)?
   
2. The Flang project currently sits under Other Projects in discourse, can it be moved to a top-level project like Clang and MLIR in https://llvm.discourse.group/? 

Thanks,
Kiran

---

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev...@lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org>
Sent: 08 January 2022 07:19
To: llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [llvm-dev] LLVM Infrastructure Changes - Moving to Discourse

 

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

Johannes,

We are working on this and will be sending an update to the list when we have more details. Until then, the ability to reply by email is supported currently. So at least one can start testing out using email to respond if they wish.

-Tanya

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

On Jan 11, 2022, at 1:28 AM, Kiran Chandramohan <Kiran.Cha...@arm.com> wrote:

Hello all,

Having used discourse for interacting with the MLIR community, I find discourse useful and support this transition.

I have a couple of points,

1. It is mentioned that the current mailing list contents will be moved to discourse. Is there a plan to match the mails of a person with their account in discourse (assuming the person already has posts in discourse and mails in the mailing list)?
   

Good questions! Here is the plan from the Discourse migration team:

Users from the archive will first be imported as users based on their email, and then they will be merged into your current Discourse site also based on their email; their ID and all user fields from our existing Discourse site will prevail.

not mailman user,     Discourse user  --> use Discourse normally

    mailman user,     Discourse user  --> use Discourse normally; they'll see their old emails in their history as if they posted them through Discourse

    mailman user, not Discourse user  --> will have Discourse user records created along with their old email history; reset Discourse password to start using it

2. The Flang project currently sits under Other Projects in discourse, can it be moved to a top-level project like Clang and MLIR in https://llvm.discourse.group/? 

I think the general idea is to make something a top-level category when it has enough traffic and needs sub-categories itself. Flang can always be moved out from under Subprojects when it makes sense. We are trying to limit how many top-level categories we have to make things less visually cluttered. Maybe we can revisit this in a couple months when we see how things go with Flang where it is? 

Thanks,

Tanya

[Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev]

Sounds good. Thanks a lot!

[Kiran Chandramohan via llvm-dev]

Thanks, Tanya for the reply.

"Users from the archive will first be imported as users based on their email, and then they will be merged into your current Discourse site also based on their email; their ID and all user fields from our existing Discourse site will prevail.

not mailman user,     Discourse user  --> use Discourse normally

    mailman user,     Discourse user  --> use Discourse normally; they'll see their old emails in their history as if they posted them through Discourse

    mailman user, not Discourse user  --> will have Discourse"

In my case, I have used my Gmail account for Discourse but my company account for the mailing list. I see in the account settings in Discourse an option for "Add Alternate Email". Will this be sufficient? If it is the then it would be good to advise existing discourse users to add alternate emails to match the mailing list email.

OK with waiting for a few months to see how things go with Flang discourse traffic.

Regards,
Kiran

---

From: Tanya Lattner <tanyal...@llvm.org>
Sent: 11 January 2022 21:42
To: Kiran Chandramohan <Kiran.Cha...@arm.com>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVM Infrastructure Changes - Moving to Discourse

 

[Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 07:19, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
<llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> LLVM Community,
>
> I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
> https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/
>
> I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
> https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html
>
> If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.

I'm not sure if others have seen this issue, but I've enabled 'mailing
list mode' and found all LLVM Discourse emails are being classified as
spam by GMail. The emails passed SPF, DKIM and DMARC checks so it
doesn't look like there's anything that can be done on Discourse's
side. Just thought I'd flag it as an issue in case others were
experiencing it.

Best,

Alex

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

On Jan 12, 2022, at 3:00 AM, Kiran Chandramohan <Kiran.Cha...@arm.com> wrote:

Thanks, Tanya for the reply.

"Users from the archive will first be imported as users based on their email, and then they will be merged into your current Discourse site also based on their email; their ID and all user fields from our existing Discourse site will prevail.

not mailman user,     Discourse user  --> use Discourse normally

    mailman user,     Discourse user  --> use Discourse normally; they'll see their old emails in their history as if they posted them through Discourse

    mailman user, not Discourse user  --> will have Discourse"

In my case, I have used my Gmail account for Discourse but my company account for the mailing list. I see in the account settings in Discourse an option for "Add Alternate Email". Will this be sufficient? If it is the then it would be good to advise existing discourse users to add alternate emails to match the mailing list email.

Yes, it looks at both primary and secondary email addresses. Also, I believe we can merge accounts after if there are any ones that got missed.

I’ll see where to put that bit of information (perhaps on user guide or add to blog post).

Thanks,

Tanya

[Brooks Davis via llvm-dev]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:32:15PM +0000, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 07:19, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > LLVM Community,
> >
> > I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
> > https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/
> >
> > I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
> > https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html
> >
> > If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.
>
> I'm not sure if others have seen this issue, but I've enabled 'mailing
> list mode' and found all LLVM Discourse emails are being classified as
> spam by GMail. The emails passed SPF, DKIM and DMARC checks so it
> doesn't look like there's anything that can be done on Discourse's
> side. Just thought I'd flag it as an issue in case others were
> experiencing it.

I subscribed to a few categories and upon seeing this message checked
and a bunch of mail had ended up in gmail's spam filters.

-- Brooks

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

Should we add to the documentation to whitelist from spam filters the sender <ll...@discoursemail.com> ?

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk via llvm-dev]

GMail is classifying some messages into spam  ( if the GMail is unable to verify that the

mail is coming  from the  "SENDER" ) : This means , the sender is NOT properly configured

which is NOT responding to GMail verification checks properly  .

I am receiving many such messages from , especially FreeBSD mailing lists due to

original sender mail accounts not properly configured or sender name contain

invisible invalid characters .

LLVM and its associated parts  messages are never classified as spam in my accounts .

My opinion is that Discourse messages from LLVM are not properly configured ,

GMail is not able  to verify their origin and send them to "spam"  directory .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:40 PM Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:

GMail is classifying some messages into spam  ( if the GMail is unable to verify that the

mail is coming  from the  "SENDER" ) : This means , the sender is NOT properly configured

which is NOT responding to GMail verification checks properly  .

I am receiving many such messages from , especially FreeBSD mailing lists due to

original sender mail accounts not properly configured or sender name contain

invisible invalid characters .

LLVM and its associated parts  messages are never classified as spam in my accounts .

My opinion is that Discourse messages from LLVM are not properly configured ,

GMail is not able  to verify their origin and send them to "spam"  directory .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

If I understand you correctly: if this was the problem, then everyone using gmail would have all Discourse email always in spam.

I don't believe this is that easy or clear cut however: many folks working on MLIR are using gmail and Discourse for > 2 years now, and I never had a spam issue so far.

So there likely are some heuristics involved here (I don't have any inside knowledge of how gmail works to be clear).

-- 

Mehdi

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk via llvm-dev]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:01 AM Mehdi AMINI <joke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:40 PM Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:

GMail is classifying some messages into spam  ( if the GMail is unable to verify that the

mail is coming  from the  "SENDER" ) : This means , the sender is NOT properly configured

which is NOT responding to GMail verification checks properly  .

I am receiving many such messages from , especially FreeBSD mailing lists due to

original sender mail accounts not properly configured or sender name contain

invisible invalid characters .

LLVM and its associated parts  messages are never classified as spam in my accounts .

My opinion is that Discourse messages from LLVM are not properly configured ,

GMail is not able  to verify their origin and send them to "spam"  directory .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

If I understand you correctly: if this was the problem, then everyone using gmail would have all Discourse email always in spam.

I don't believe this is that easy or clear cut however: many folks working on MLIR are using gmail and Discourse for > 2 years now, and I never had a spam issue so far.

So there likely are some heuristics involved here (I don't have any inside knowledge of how gmail works to be clear).

-- 

Mehdi

My ideas may not  all be correct . As I said : I am receiving messages from FreeBSD mailing lists which some of them ( meaning not all of them )  were sent to the "spam" directory . I have informed one of the message senders about the issue by writing his e-mail address directly into the "to" area .

He received my message and send me a message saying his mailing system is working

properly .

I copied and pasted his e-mail address from the FreeBSD delivered message : Response was

"There is NO such an address" .  Why ?

I have looked at the name from the FreeBSD mailing list with a hexadecimal editor .

There were characters additional to the original name as invalid characters not displayed

as text ( perhaps appended by the delivery system due to a name length bug or ? . )

Whatever the reason I do not know , some names are becoming corrupted in this way .

When GMail is sending such names to the originating mailing system , the sender system

is responding "There is NO such an address" .

OR the sending mailing list is using an invalid sender name as its name ,

OR the sending mailing list is not configured properly and either is not responding or

      its response is incorrect with respect to format to be used

( I have informed a mailing list about spam classified messages  and

possible misconfiguration . The response was : "We have corrected misconfiguration due

to an unset variable ." : Message delivery was not behaving in a deterministic way

because of random value of unset variable . )

OR any other reason which I do not know properly .

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

[Florian Weimer via llvm-dev]

* Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev:

> I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
> https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/
>
> I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
> https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html
>
> If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.

Is it possible to cross-post to Discourse and to some other mailing
list? I don't think so.

We probably didn't use this functionality (posting to mailing lists
across LLVM/non-LLVM projects) as much as we should have in the past,
but I tried to reach out for a few things, and we had at least one
nice success as a result.

The projects I work on are not on Github, so that's no suitable tool
for collaboration, either.

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Jan 15, 2022, at 1:38 PM, Florian Weimer via llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> * Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev:
>
>> I just posted a blog post about the upcoming changes to the mailing lists and LLVM Discourse forums:
>> https://blog.llvm.org/posts/2022-01-07-moving-to-discourse/
>>
>> I am sure some may be anxious about this change, but I hope we can work together as a community to resolve any potential issues or help each other navigate this change. I have put the migration to discourse guide that was drafted by the Infrastructure Working Group in LLVM Docs, and encourage people to add their tips and tricks to help others migrate over.
>> https://llvm.org/docs/DiscourseMigrationGuide.html
>>
>> If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know.
>
> Is it possible to cross-post to Discourse and to some other mailing
> list? I don't think so.
>
> We probably didn't use this functionality (posting to mailing lists
> across LLVM/non-LLVM projects) as much as we should have in the past,
> but I tried to reach out for a few things, and we had at least one
> nice success as a result.
>

I personally am not a fan of cross posting to multiple lists (especially totally different projects). It tends to generate a lot of moderation pain among other things.

So maybe while we could technically get it to work (no idea if it can), we would really need to have a conversation about the benefits versus costs.

-Tanya