On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:45:22 +0100
Jaromil wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Florian Zieboll wrote:
>
> > Another loose thought on this: To spare the mailing list machine(s)
> > the additional burden of hashing, wouldn't it be sufficient to add
> > a simple counter to mailman and make it inject the c
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:45:22AM +0100, Jaromil wrote:
[cut]
>
> I haven't look at any existing solution, but I believe that a good
> approach would be to use the actual message-id: in the headers, which is
> also an identifier to retrieve email from lurker. But I have no idea if
> that header
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016, Florian Zieboll wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 13:55:20 +
> hellekin wrote:
>
> > I guess we can investigate and find out how to generate these from
> > mailman, and then have a nice URL like:
> > https://lurker.devuan.org/ to redirect to the relevant
> > lurker message. T
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 13:55:20 +
hellekin wrote:
> I guess we can investigate and find out how to generate these from
> mailman, and then have a nice URL like:
> https://lurker.devuan.org/ to redirect to the relevant
> lurker message. This would also make Devuan Editors' lives easier
> when wor
On 02/01/2016 10:49 AM, Florian Zieboll wrote:
>
> Can Mailman predict the URL under which Lurker will archive the message
> it is processing "on the fly", or is there even a variable available?
>
> Quoting and referencing "third party" messages would be so much easier,
> if mails contained thei
A suggestion / request:
Can Mailman predict the URL under which Lurker will archive the message
it is processing "on the fly", or is there even a variable available?
Quoting and referencing "third party" messages would be so much easier,
if mails contained their own Lurker URL in the signature!
