Hi Jameson,
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:11:41 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> It appears to be an oversight that encrypted parts were indexed
> previously. The terms generated from encrypted parts are meaningless
> and do nothing but add bloat to the database. It is not worth
> indexing the
Hi Jameson,
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:11:41 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
It appears to be an oversight that encrypted parts were indexed
previously. The terms generated from encrypted parts are meaningless
and do nothing but add bloat to the database. It is
Quoth Jameson Graef Rollins on Dec 27 at 9:11 am:
> It appears to be an oversight that encrypted parts were indexed
> previously. The terms generated from encrypted parts are meaningless
> and do nothing but add bloat to the database. It is not worth
> indexing the encrypted content, just as
It appears to be an oversight that encrypted parts were indexed
previously. The terms generated from encrypted parts are meaningless
and do nothing but add bloat to the database. It is not worth
indexing the encrypted content, just as it's not worth indexing the
signatures in signed parts.
---
It appears to be an oversight that encrypted parts were indexed
previously. The terms generated from encrypted parts are meaningless
and do nothing but add bloat to the database. It is not worth
indexing the encrypted content, just as it's not worth indexing the
signatures in signed parts.
---
Quoth Jameson Graef Rollins on Dec 27 at 9:11 am:
It appears to be an oversight that encrypted parts were indexed
previously. The terms generated from encrypted parts are meaningless
and do nothing but add bloat to the database. It is not worth
indexing the encrypted content, just as it's