On 02/12/2015 12:28 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Andrew Daviel writes:
Experimentally, if I add "X-No-Archive: no" in Alpine or Thunderbird, pipermail will not archive the message,
Do you consider that a bug?
I'm not sure why anybody would use "X-No-Archive: no" in reality, I wonder if it's a mistake in interpreting the double negation.
As I posted earlier Mailman does not archive a message with an X-No-Archive: header. It doesn't look at the content which could be yes, no, empty or anything else. This is deliberate.
It does look at the content of an X-Archive: header which must be (case insensitive) no to suppress archiving.
This is explained in the code and comments which Andrew quoted in the same post partially quoted above
I found it implemented in /usr/lib/mailman/Mailman/Handlers/ToArchive.py, viz. # Common practice seems to favor "X-No-Archive: yes". No other value for # this header seems to make sense, so we'll just test for it's presence. # I'm keeping "X-Archive: no" for backwards compatibility. if msg.has_key('x-no-archive') or msg.get('x-archive', '').lower() == 'no': return
So the experiment just confirms that the code does what it says. Given that
X-No-Archive: no
apparently does occur in the wild, if we can confirm that the semantics of this should be 'do archive', file a bug and I'll fix it.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan