So do you think it might make sense to just expand the range of “working example archivers” i.e. like the “prototype” archiver currently does, instead of trying to provide something that would be a maintenance burden?
That way people can see the archivers, can use them if they want but they’re just examples that can be used as a starting point, not designed to meet all needs. as On 23 Mar 2015, at 2:23 am, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: Andrew Stuart writes: > Specifically if would be good if a Mailman admin could define in > the Mailman config file a set of destination email addresses and > POST urls that archive messages are sent to. This would meet many > common archiving needs via configuration instead of code. I think this is a good idea but it scares me. Every archiver is a little bit different, and it's not obvious to me that generic mailto: and http: POST urls are sufficient to cover the kinds of things that archivers might want to do. It could be a noticable maintenance burden. That said, besides mailto and POST, there's NNTP (Gmane, at least), although NNTP also seems likely to need an incoming gateway as well. > I’d also include a filesystem/zip archiver which writes each > message to a zipped file on the disk. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://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: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
