On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM, David Jeske <dav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps I misunderstood. If you are going to have a record of the deletion > (i.e. you can keep a deleted message around in some form), this problem > becomes much easier. In practice, complete deletion is occasionally necessary. The archives should be robust to that. > Absolutly if there is a message 'deletion' feature, it should delete the > message contents but leave a 'stub' that links the message-id and > references/in-reply-to, so it can help hold the thread together during a > rebuild. If a message is actually a referencable member of a thread, there will be references to it in other messages. Only in the (increasingly rare) case of a thread held together only by In-Reply-Tos will the thread be cut by removing a message; otherwise the reference headers are enough to rebuild. I think it's reasonable to leave a stub whose only content is "This message was administratively removed" plus the References, Message-ID, and Date header fields. I don't know what to do about the required >From field, but since it's not going out on the wire in a certain technical sense the RFC doesn't apply. Alternatively, use 'From: "J. Redacted User" <anonym...@example.com>". The only real problem I can see with this is that third parties who see it may go searching personal archives for a local copy of the offending message, which goes against the spirit of deletion -- better to pretend the message was never publicly posted. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 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://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
