On 02/12/2015 06:26 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> So I think we can conclude that (1) individuals who intentionally use
> "X-No-Archive: no" are *extremely* rare, and (2) the example of these
> lists doesn't provide any guidance to Mailman since Mailman provides
> no facility for generating X
J.B. Nicholson-Owens writes:
> Overall, I think people are better off understanding that their
> boilerplate is not binding on most people (if anyone) and they need
> to be more careful in what they send.
I don't think anyone here disagrees. On the other hand, people *do*
have an expectation
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Andrew Daviel writes:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive says
> "If the X-No-Archive field is set to "No", or the field is absent, a
> Usenet archive will not recognize a prohibition on archiving the message."
>
> Experimentally, if I add
Jeff Breidenbach writes:
> I checked
Thank you!
> and these two lists are responsible. One uses 'No' and the other
> uses 'no' for every message. I can't speak to the intention. There
> are an impressive number of headers on each message including DKIM
> but I don't see a clue as to the lis
On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
>I believe this is the case for two reasons:
>1. Structurally: Few search engine companies will throw away an opportunity
>to collect data when there's so much for that organization to gain by
>indexing that data.
>
>2. Specific to Google:
Andrew Daviel wrote:
I found "X-No-Archive" in wikipedia that was apparently honored by
google when archiving usenet.
Keep in mind that all archivers probably archive the message anyway but
might treat "X-No-Archive: yes" as a cue to not release that message to
public queries. In other words,
Andrew Stuart writes:
> It seems like a good idea to me to normalise dates on emails to UTC
> but you guys would know best.
No, you don't touch any dates *on* the email. You parse them and
convert to UTC for internal handling (whatever that might be).
> What would be the pros and cons of ema
I checked and these two lists are responsible. One uses
'No' and the other uses 'no' for every message. I can't speak
to the intention. There are an impressive number of headers
on each message including DKIM but I don't see a clue as
to the list server software.
http://www.mail-archive.com/iagi-n
On 2/11/2015 7:37 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Only because it already has, except for the RFC, and
http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/ietf-mail-attributes.html
mentions the definition of "X-No-Archive: Yes".
In practice, I believe most of the standard (Mailman's Pipermail[1],
mail-ar
On Feb 12, 2015, at 01:42 AM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>apparently does occur in the wild, if we can confirm that the semantics
>of this should be 'do archive', file a bug and I'll fix it.
It's been ages, but IIRC the reason for accepting any value is exactly because
of the double negative. People had
On Feb 12, 2015, at 11:09 PM, Andrew Stuart wrote:
>Does Mailman normalize dates on emails to UTC?
I'm not sure which dates you mean. Are you asking whether Mailman should
modify the Date header on emails? Definitely not. :)
Ideally I do think any internal dates gathered from external sources
Hi,
I am working on bug #967951.Following is the diff file for my changes.
http://pastebin.com/x7LMiTCR
I am getting the following error on running the tests.
http://pastebin.com/NFU3Gbrc
Can someone please help as i unable to understand why i am getting these
errors!
Any help would be appreciated
Hi,
I am working on bug #967951.Following is the diff file for my changes.
http://pastebin.com/x7LMiTCR
I am getting the following error on running the tests.
http://pastebin.com/NFU3Gbrc
Can someone please help as i unable to understand why i am getting these
errors!
Any help would be appreciated
Does Mailman normalize dates on emails to UTC?
It seems like a good idea to me to normalise dates on emails to UTC but you
guys would know best.
What would be the pros and cons of email date normalisation to UTC? Are there
good reasons not to?
Which date field on an email is even the right one
Mark Sapiro writes:
> As I posted earlier Mailman does not archive a message with an
> X-No-Archive: header. It doesn't look at the content which could be yes,
> no, empty or anything else. This is deliberate.
Yes, I understand that, and the fact that the code uses .has_key makes
it clear that
On 02/12/2015 12:28 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Andrew Daviel writes:
> >
> > Experimentally, if I add "X-No-Archive: no" in Alpine or
> > Thunderbird, pipermail will not archive the message,
>
> Do you consider that a bug?
>
> I'm not sure why anybody would use "X-No-Archive: no" in rea
Andrew Daviel writes:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive says
> "If the X-No-Archive field is set to "No", or the field is absent, a
> Usenet archive will not recognize a prohibition on archiving the message."
>
> Experimentally, if I add "X-No-Archive: no" in Alpine or
> Thunderb
17 matches
Mail list logo
