On Apr 20, 2012, at 01:43 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>Note that RFC 5064 defines the Archived-At header. IMO, this would be the
>appropriate place to add any list-specific namespace discriminator. Also, RFC
>2369 defines the List-Archive header, which could contain the base URL to the
>archiver, including the List-ID information.
Note that one problem with including the List-ID value in the hash is that if
you receive an off-list copy of the message, you may not be able to calculate
the hash to that message in the archive, because you will not have the List-ID
header in your copy. You will still have the Message-ID.
It will *usually* be possible to calculate this, given a reasonable assumption
of the mapping from the list posting address (in the To field, remember you
also won't have the List-Post header!). E.g. if you see:
To: t...@example.com
you can reasonably guess that List-ID will be <test.example.com>. It may not
be though, or the list may have gotten migrated and given a different List-ID.
That was the beauty of the original algorithm; all you needed was the
Message-ID.
I don't think that's a fatal flaw to not include the List-ID in the hash,
since I think it will be rare in practice for List-ID to be incalculable from
the To header, but it's something to be aware of.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
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
