Brad Knowles wrote:
At 7:17 PM +0900 2005-05-06, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Maybe you could make it part of the user's configuration. Then the list master could default it to X-No-Archive: yes; individual users could turn it to no if they want to, including on a message by message basis. A stretch, I know, but it would be really horrible to have to have separate archiving control headers for the user and the list, and to have to establish a precedence, etc.
Allowing users to set their archive preference in their list settings is a completely different feature. If someone wants to write a patch that does that, it should act on incoming email before mailman processes that mail for local archiving so that the local archive honors the user's setting. Then the list archive process would happen after the local archive is written.
I think the concept of having Mailman optionally add it's own "X-No-Archive:" header would greatly complicate the situation, and I would be opposed to spending a whole lot of time working on this unless someone else can provide us a pretty much complete feature-rich patch that allows for modifying where in the stream this process is done and where in the stream Mailman pays attention to this header itself, and on a per-user basis.
Personally, I don't see this as a big problem. If the header is inserted at a single specific place in the stream that is OK *as long as it's properly documented*. Then each list server admin or list owner can choose to turn this feature on or not, knowing exactly what it will do.
IMHO, the correct place to insert this header is after mailman has processed the incoming message and archived it locally. That way the original sender's x-no-archive setting (set in the original incoming email or by the *other* x-no-archive patch that might someday be added) is correct for the local archive, and the outgoing mail is correct for the list's preference.
jc