Moving to Mailman-Developers per BAW. CC to -Users; Reply-To set to -Developers only.
Barry Warsaw writes: > Hi Richard, > > Please see RFC 5064: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5064.txt Argh. You'd think they'd get in touch with the maintainers and users of the most popular mailing list software before approving it. It doesn't even mention the word "thread". If somebody knows offhand how to find the archived discussions for the RFC, please post an URL. It's hard to imagine these guys didn't already cover a lot of the ground that we'll want to (especially the point that X-Archived-Thread may be a YAGNI). Richard Hartman writes: > I was wondering if anyone would think X-Archive-Thread and > X-Archive-Mail would make sense. A couple of minutes' reflection suggests to me that this distinction may be artificial. Specifically, (1) It's not obvious to me how many such distinctions make sense. For example, User A may wish to jump to head of thread to see the whole thing, while User B may wish to jump to most recent to see if there's been a resolution (or maybe the list is infested with top-posters so reading the most recent in last-line-first mode is the most efficient way to get the whole thread!) Some users may want to see an index, which might be by-date or by-author or by-subject. (2) This URL "works" in the sense that you get the specified document, and the query part is ignored. I don't know if this is an artifact of the server daemon or if it's part of the specification of the query part. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt?bogusquery=doesnotmatter (3) In current best practice (heck, even pipermail does it) each message contains "up" pointers to one or more relevant indicies. This means that you're at most three clicks from where you want to be (archive link in current message, thread index, thread-head message). Given those three points, I suggest that a better way to do this is to provide some standard queries *relative to an archived message* that dynamic archive servers can support, while with a static server the user is not very far from where she wants to be in any case. Some additional comments: (1) suggests that "archived thread" is premature in the RFC tradition; there's no practice to support it yet AFAIK. We could support it, but use of URLs with derived queries generated by MUAs is somewhat more flexible (there's no backward compatibility problem with archaic X-Headers). _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
