[Mailman-Users] weird archive "thread" view

[Mark Sapiro]

IEM - network operating center (IOhannes m zmoelnig) wrote:
>
>Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> 
>> If messages are threaded without one of those headers referencing a
>> prior message in the thread, then there is a problem with pipermail,
>> but if the header is there, it is a problem with the user or the
>> user's MUA.
>
>as you have already noticed the problem seems to be somewhere else.
>the references are correct within the mbox file.
>
>
>one thing that might be related to this is: if a thread was started in 
>an earlier archive-volume, the thread continuation will be indented as 
>if it was in the same archive-volume.
>e.g. a thread starts late january and by february it has reached a depth 
>of 4.
>in the archives for february, it will thus start with a thread-depth 4, 
>making it _appear_ as if it was part of another thread (which by chance 
>might have had depth 3.
>it might be a good idea to somehow make thread boundaries visible with 
>some more explicit technique than indentation.


The 'initial' indentation of a continued thread in a new month is
almost certainly related to your patches. It doesn't occur with
unpatched pipermail.

See for example the posts

# [Mailman-Users] one list not sending to members   Mark Sapiro
# [Mailman-Users] password sends   Mark Sapiro 

at the beginning of
<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2009-March/thread.html>.
Both of these are replies to February posts.


>my own hackery _might_ be related in a weird way: after the upgrade from 
>2.1.9(patched) to 2.1.11 the archiver stopped working alltogether (since 
>i added a new archive-type "month00" rather than replacing "month"); so 
>some mails have not been archived at all; which might make up for the 
>weird threading (e.g. if the initial mail of a thread had not been 
>archived, the next mail would start at level 2; again making it appear 
>as if it was a follow-up to something unrelated)
>
>in any case i am attaching my hackery...
>
>
>>> and, btw, is there a reason why the max thread-depth seems to be 4?
>> 
>> 
>> It's only the display depth that's limited to 4 to keep the page from
>> growing too wide.
>
>
>is this settable somewhere in a configuration file?
>i found THREADLEVELS in Mailman/Archiver/HyperArch.py, but no relation 
>to mm_cfg.
>(even though i have a hacked version of mailman, i prefer to keep the 
>number of hacks minimal :-))


No, it is not settable in mm_cfg.py. Also, no one wants to touch or
even think about pipermail. It is too convoluted. It is not the least
surprising that your changes may have had unintended consequences.

-- 
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan