понеділок 28 січень 2008 08:05 по, Brad Knowles Ви написали: > We do not do a "single instance store" within the archiving system of > Mailman, and I can pretty much guarantee you that we never will. > That's not to say that this is necessarily a bad idea, but I think we > have much, much more important issues to resolve
May I suggest, you underestimate the importance of this feature? Cross-posting may often be justified from the end-user perspective, but is discouraged by the admins exactly because it increases the archival-storage requirements... > We do not implement any kind of IMAP or other user mailbox service > with Mailman. If you want that, you should go somewhere else. Brad, I brought up a particular IMAP-server's implementation as /an example/ of how a single message can appear in multiple mailboxes, while only copy of it is stored. You refer to this as "single instance store". IMAP-server developers are just more affected by the same issue -- people CC-ing multiple addressees results in the same message getting to multiple mailboxes. IMAP-server admins also don't have the "luxury" of prohibiting CC-ing, as mailing-list admins often do. So IMAP-servers already implement the "single instance store", and it would be nice (and logical) if mailing list software did too -- starting with the recognized leader of the pack... > I *violently* disagree with your claim. If a message was > cross-posted to multiple mailing lists and indexed by Google, then > Google will most certainly return multiple hits for the same message, > and this is precisely what any proper search engine should do. > > De-duplication at this level is absolutely the worst thing you could > do -- at least by default And yet Google does just that -- de-duplication -- in its search results... It will display a warning at the bottom of the page, saying that duplicate results were suppressed... > Mailman does not incorporate any search function, therefore which > searches return which messages is totally and completely irrelevant > to Mailman. Well, this is more important -- I was under the (mistaken) impression, that it does. There is no point arguing, how a good search-engine should do things on a Mailman forum, if Mailman implements no search function. Thank you, guys, very much for your comments. We'll try to look into the "sister-list" feature of 2.1.10 to eliminate/reduce multiple copies of messages going to the same subscriber and await 3.0 for a full solution to the problem. I hope, you'll give the idea of "single instance storage" another thought. There is already an option to archive in "Maildir" format. Optionally storing hardlinks instead of copies of cross-posts can't be too difficult... Yours, -mi ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
