The mailing list for listmasters using Sympa

[Miles Fidelman <address@concealed>]

On 3/20/18 2:16 PM, Matthew Caron wrote:

> On 03/20/2018 01:16 PM, Peter Schober wrote:
> > Whether there's a /need/ for Sympa deployers to be running Sympa that
> > way I couldn't say. Whether there's a need for the Sympa project to
> > be providing such a setup I don't know, either (but I'm sceptical).
> I'm skeptical as well. I think it's the new shiny, so everyone wants it.
> What's the real "user story" here?
>
> > The *alternative* approach (as presented by Matthew C.) is treating
> > containers as VMs and stuffing all into one image.
> And this is true whether we use docker/Xen/VBox/Vmware/etc.
>
> > Certainly easier to
> > do from the traditional stating point but may not allow to reap all
> > the (claimed) benefits of containerisation.
> > I.e., here the question is "Why bother with containers at all"?
> I don't. I think it adds complexity for little value. But, I'm a grumpy
> old man.
>
> > The technology doesn't limit you to either model. What is the goal?
> > Make things scale better? Get something published that others can
> > easily play with?  The answers to those questions will differ
> > significantly depending on focus/aims.
> Bingo! Which brings us back to the user story.

And, of course, let's not forget that containers - before adding the 
baggage of specific schemes - were simply an alternative approach to 
providing user & namespace isolation in a Unix environment - i.e., the 
SunOS lightweight alternative to running a hypervisor.

Depending on the user story - isolating one's mail/list system makes 
perfect sense - whether on separate hardware, a VM, or inside a 
container.  Isolating Sympa from it's associated mailer, antispam, and 
antivirus processing would seem to make a lot less sense.

Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra