On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Jeff Breidenbach <j...@jab.org> wrote:
> 2) The reason mail-archive.com uses List-Post and not List-Id in the > calculation is because every list, RFC2369 compliant or not, has a > concept of a posting address. That would be fine, except that in my personal practice for some lists List-Post changes predictably (once a year, but it is quite regular), and the original List-Post is reused every year. Pretty idiosyncratic, yes, but if we have a List-Id, I think we should use it in preference to List-Post. I think it's true that you can use "whatever was calculated by mailman and placed in the Archived-At: header." > I've always found List-Id annoying, You have a practical reason you can share? (N.B. I have no quarrel if you just say it's an obnoxious YAGNI or the like, I'm just curious.) > 3) As long as things are changing, I want to mention that these URLs > feel too long. SHA-1 is a 160 bit hash consuming 32 URL characters. Agreed, these are long. However, I don't really see why lists shouldn't provide both a canonical URL in Archived-At and a tinyurl for the message footer and user use. (There might not be a permancy guarantee for the tinyurl, though.) More design and programming work for us, true, but that's a one-off. _______________________________________________ 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
