sbp commented on pull request #517:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-702772743


   It does not suffice to "[use a best guess as to the original LID that was 
used](https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-693372710)"
 to reconstruct an **OL** permalink. If somebody has an `opaque_lid` permalink, 
and the message is lost but the Ponymail operator guesses an incorrect new lid, 
then the original `opaque_lid` link will break. If links break then they cannot 
be considered permalinks.
   
   Moreover, if the appended lid in **OL** were not an integral part of the 
permalink then it would be necessary to use it anyway to disambiguate which 
list UI to apply to a message in the archives. This is because, for example and 
amongst other possible scenarios, the [same message could be imported 
twice](https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-692033864)
 with different manual command line lid overrides. Using lid UI disambiguation 
has [already been 
proposed](https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-693372710),
 and requires [handling of the 
case](https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-691953754)
 where the lid is omitted from the link.
   
   One could consider that the current commit dfd18eb already implements **OL** 
in the presence of lid UI disambiguation. It is therefore not an accurate 
characterisation that the current commit "[will need to be 
fixed](https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/pull/517#issuecomment-693372710)"
 to include the lid in the input, because the intention was that lid UI 
disambiguation would be introduced alongside the current commit, or implemented 
in a future version with a warning to users in the documentation meanwhile.
   


----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


Reply via email to