> What you gain from my proposal over a pure Message-ID approach
> is guaranteed uniqueness given the list copy
Guarantee is a pretty strong word. A malicious person could post two
messages with the same message-id, same date, but different bodies.
Sometimes the channel between the MLM and the arc
Jeff Breidenbach writes:
> >So we just specify a header to put it in, and subscribers will be able
> >to use it, per definition of a canonical URL.
>
> It is the archive server's job to decide what is the "canonical" URL
> for a message. There's a good chance these archival URLs will be
> s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
>> What complexity? Mailman just does
>>
>> msg['X-List-Archive-Received-ID'] = Email.msgid()
>
> Easy to introduce, harder to deal with. The archival server would now
> keep track of both the me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 24, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I simply think we should be prepared for applications where relying on
> the sender to supply a UUID is not acceptable; we need to be able to
> provide one ourselves. Creating UUIDs is a solve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 24, 2007, at 2:02 AM, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
> Which brings me to suggestion #2, which is go ahead and write
> an RFC on how list servers should embed archival links in messages.
> This sounds like an internet wide interoperability issue as mu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 22, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Terri Oda wrote:
> On 20-Jul-07, at 8:39 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> I've looked at a few lurker archivers and I wasn't blown away by its
>> user interface. That's apparently highly configurable though.
>
> I've been doin
> Regardless of whether we *need* to generate our own unique ID, I'm
> leaning towards the thought that we're going to *want* to generate
> our own for usability reasons. In a perfect world, i think we'd have
> a sequence number so I could visit http://example.com/mailman/
> archives/listname/204.
On 24-Jul-07, at 12:31 PM, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
>> So we just specify a header to put it in, and subscribers will be
>> able
>> to use it, per definition of a canonical URL.
> It is the archive server's job to decide what is the "canonical" URL
> for a message. There's a good chance these arch
Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
> In addition, Barry was talking about concocting a unique
> identifier from the Date field and Message-ID. I'm not a big fan of
> this idea, because the date field comes from the mail user agent
> and is often wildly corrupt; e;g; coming from 100 years in the future.
Oh--I
There are three different parties coming to the table. One is
the mail transfer agent of the sender, another is the list server,
and the third is the archive server. Ideally, all three will be happy
campers.
>So we just specify a header to put it in, and subscribers will be able
>to use it, per de
John A. Martin writes:
> >> better to go ahead and use the mesage-id, rather than concoct
> >> yet another "this time we mean it!" unique identifier.
>
> st> That's not the point. We're not going to impose this on
> st> senders;
>
> I read the quote as meaning "this time
> "st" == Stephen J Turnbull
> "Re: [Mailman-Developers] Improving the archives"
> Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:56:35 +0900
st> Jeff Breidenbach writes:
>> > Notice that of 325146 total messages, 624 of them had no
>> > message-id header. Even if you aggregate dup+col, you're
12 matches
Mail list logo
