>>>>> "st" == Stephen J Turnbull
>>>>> "Re: [Mailman-Developers] Improving the archives"
>>>>>  Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:49:58 +0900

    st> The main drawback to using Message IDs that I can see is that
    st> broken MUAs may supply no Message-ID, or the same one
    st> repeatedly.  In the former case, as a last resort Mailman can
    st> supply one,

If the archive is considered to be a reflection of what Mailman _put_
on the wire, as distinct from what was received from the wire, then
adding a Message-ID in the absence one already present is a reflection
of a SHOULD requirement of rfc(2)822.  In the absence of a Message-ID
on an outgoing mail message many if not most MTAs will add one.  Why
not let Mailman anticipate the need to add a Message-ID when archiving
the message rather than leaving it to the outgoing MTA?


Attachment: pgpQL0SZvNpJX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Mailman-Developers mailing list
Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
Searchable Archives: 

Security Policy: 

Reply via email to