On 12-04-20 11:09 AM, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Apr 20, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I think the hash value should be opaque. Jeff can perhaps elaborate his
use-case but I don't think the List-ID needs to be (or frankly *should* be)
extractable from the hash, but instead just needs to inform the hash value.
IOW, if you cross-post a message with Message-ID:<foo> to o...@example.org and
t...@example.com, you'd get two different messages forwarded to the archives,
and they would have different Permalink: hash values. Before this proposal,
they'd have the same value.
Here, we might be wish to be able to have only one copy of the message in the
archive and/or the distribution channels even when that message gets
cross-posted to multiple lists.
I may be mis-remembering, but I believe one reason to put List-ID in the
hash is in part to shorten URLs so that you can just have
http://example.com/archiver/$hash
Instead of the longer
http://example.com/archiver/listname.example.com/$hash
And still have the message appear in the appropriate list context (with
next/prev links, etc.) when using the shorter URL because it will be a
unique ID even if the message has been cross-posted.
A question, though: what if the list gets migrated to a new server and
the list id changes (e.g. because the domain or hostname changes)? I'm
guessing we can handle it, but we should make sure there's a path for that.
Terri
_______________________________________________
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
