Harold Fuchs wrote:
Barbara Duprey wrote:
Following a clue in the message received on subscription, I found a
command that says it retrieves the posts of a thread. I gave it the
message number of my own first post to the list, 135977, to see what
would happen.
The syntax in the subscription message was wrong. The first attempt
at sending a message to [email protected] failed,
saying that the mailer daemon couldn't find
[email protected] (no idea where that "m" came
from, it was certainly not in what I typed -- I tried again, same
result). It asked if I actually meant
[email protected], So I tried that. Again,
failure, this time with another httpd- prepended. Sigh.
So I tried sending the message to [email protected].
This time I thought I was onto something, I got a Digest message back
that included posts from this list, including one numbered 135977:
users Digest of: thread-135977
Re: click in Menu bar causes blue screen in Windows xp sp2
135969 by: sjm netx
135977 by: Harold Fuchs
135981 by: Kirill S. Palagin
137121 by: Edward.M.Gillie.pmusa.com
137141 by: sjm netx
137194 by: Kirill S. Palagin
But that number was associated with a response in a thread about a
totally different subject! It gave me that whole thread (Thunderbird
showed a set of icons labeled users_xxxxxx.ezm, and also showed the
contents in-line), but it wasn't the one I wanted.
Next question -- had I gotten the number wrong? So I tried the
archive link again to see if it was my message:
http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=135977
Sure enough, that's my own message. Somehow, the two message numbers
are different, and quite separate in time; my message was on Dec. 7,
2006, and the digest has that number associated with one from Nov. 2
of that year (more than a month earlier). So it appears that there is
*some* number that would get the digest of a given thread, but how to
determine it?
I opened a recent message from the list and looked at the Return-Path
header, which I remembered had another "magic number" in it. I tried
that number in the users-thread command -- and VOILA!
users Digest of: thread-203472
Re: Issues with Unsubscribed Users
203463 by: Harold Fuchs
203472 by: John Kaufmann
The number I actually used was 203472, and the top of the thread was
Harold's message. This was the thread I was hoping to get.
End result: we now have a mechanism for looking at an unsub's post
and giving him a command that will result in his getting a digest of
the thread. He can repeat the request as often as he wants,
discarding the old digest because the whole thread will be captured.
And this could even be done from somewhere inside the thread, if we
didn't keep the original post, since it backs up over the whole
thread (* subject to some more investigation). Opening the attached
.ezm file (at least on Thunderbird) yields a message to which you can
reply; the only hitch I see is that its reply-to is set for the
individual, not for the list. Still need to check out some things
like changed subject lines, thread hijacking, etc., but...
I think we may be getting close here! If anybody else wants to play,
come on in.
I've discovered another irritant here. If you look at the "Raw
display" of a message in the Archive, the message/thread number is
*not* shown. So it seems one would have to capture it from the message
itself - or at least from one in the thread.
Yes, that makes it a bit harder to correlate what happens when you
retrieve a branched thread. (I have worked through it, though, and it
seems to work just fine; even picked up a piece that confused
Thunderbird by using a FW: in front of the subject.) But I think our
general case will be that an unsub starts a new thread, and somebody (or
some process) opens up that header and gets the number to insert as part
of a command in the response to the unsub. If you're deeper in, you can
do your own retrieval and take the number from the top of the thread
(and get the unsub's e-mail while you're at it, looking at the first
inline message). The Digest has a tidy list of the numbers -- not
threaded, unfortunately, they're in ascending sequence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
