On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 07:19:21AM GMT, Eric Wong wrote: > Correct, public-inbox currently won't index every header due to > cost, false positives, and otherwise lack of usefulness (general > gibberish from DKIM sigs, various UUIDs, etc). > > So it doesn't currently know about "X-stable:" > > I started working on making headers indexing configurable last > year, but didn't hear a response from the person that > potentially was interested: > > https://public-inbox.org/meta/20231120032132.M610564@dcvr/ > > Right now, indexing new headers + validations can be maintained > as a Perl module in the public-inbox codebase. > > For lore, it'd make sense to be able to configure a bunch (or > all) inboxes at once instead of the per-inbox configuration in > my proposed RFC. > > At minimum, one would have to know: > > 1) the mail header name (e.g. `X-stable') > 2) the search prefix to use (e.g. `xstable:') # can't use dash `-' AFAIK > 3) the type of header value (phrase, string, sortable numeric, etc...)
I'm whole-heartedly for this! This ties nicely to my b4 work where I'd like to be able to identify code-review trailers sent for a specific patch, even if that patch itself is not on lore. For example, this could be a patch that is part of a pull-request on a git forge, but we'd still like to be able to collect and find code-review trailers for it when a maintainer applies it. Currently, I am using the following approach: | Reviewed-by: Some Developer <some....@example.org> | --- | for-patch-id: abcd...1234 Then I can query 'nq:"for-patch-id: abcd...1234"', but this is probably much more heavy than if I could provide this in a custom header: | X-For-Patch-ID: abcd...1234 and query for "xforpatchid:abcd...1234" > I'm trying to avoid supporting sortable numeric values for this, > since supporting them will problems if columns get repurposed > with admins changing their minds. A full reindex would fix it, > but those are crazy expensive. I'm perfectly fine with it only being a string, honestly. > > So probably just supporting strings and/or phrases to start... > > Validation to prevent poisoning by malicious/broken senders can > be useful in some cases (and the reason the RFC was a per use > case Perl module). That said, I'm not sure if much validation > is necessary for X-stable: headers or if just any text is fine. I'd let the consumer clients worry about it. -K
