Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-10-06 Thread Mark Sapiro
Manuel Kissoyan wrote: > >Where exactly are saved the atatchement files, also in which format uencoded >or just like the original attachement file? Scrubbed attachments are stored in the directory archives/private//attachments. In most cases, they are just the original attachment (decoded from th

Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-10-06 Thread Manuel Kissoyan
hi! Where exactly are saved the atatchement files, also in which format uencoded or just like the original attachement file? thank you in advance! > At 3:04 PM -0300 2005-09-27, Manuel Kissoyan wrote: > >> My question is, how long are these files saved for people to download > > They a

Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-09-29 Thread Brad Knowles
At 2:29 PM +0900 2005-09-29, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Brad>Because some MUAs generate message-ids that are likely > Brad> to collide. > > Can we stop pandering to the broken mailers, please? Are we not > hackers? We know how to handle collisions. I don't really care

Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-09-28 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
> "John" == John W Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> In addition, the Message-Id values would have to be John> filtered, if used as is, for URL-unfriendly characters I don't think so. AFAIK, that was fixed about 2000 RFCs ago. When used as URLs, conforming agents will URL-enc

Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-09-28 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Brad> At 2:03 PM +0900 2005-09-28, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> Why archivers don't use Message-Id for the URL, I don't know. Brad> Because some MUAs generate message-ids that are likely Brad> to collide. Can we sto

Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-09-28 Thread Brad Knowles
At 8:50 AM -0700 2005-09-28, John W. Baxter wrote: > The hash of Message-Id:, Date:, and Received: (all of the Received: headers) > would do, except for the case of an insane MTA--the one generating the "top" > Received: header--feeding the same message into Mailman multiple times. > Perhaps a

Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-09-28 Thread John W. Baxter
On 9/28/05 1:30 AM, "Brad Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why archivers don't use Message-Id for the URL, I don't know. > > Because some MUAs generate message-ids that are likely to > collide. In addition, the Message-Id values would have to be filtered, if used as is, for URL-unfriendly

Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-09-28 Thread Brad Knowles
At 2:03 PM +0900 2005-09-28, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Why archivers don't use Message-Id for the URL, I don't know. Because some MUAs generate message-ids that are likely to collide. For some time now, I've been arguing that they should use a hash of the relevant information (mayb

Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-09-27 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Im assuming they self delete after a while because clicking on >> one of the link now indicates its not there." Brad> That implies that something else is going on. There Brad> is no standard cron job that I know of

Re: [Mailman-Users] attachements question

2005-09-27 Thread Brad Knowles
At 3:04 PM -0300 2005-09-27, Manuel Kissoyan wrote: > My question is, how long are these files saved for people to download They are saved until some other process comes along to clean them out. >and > are they aut