On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:40:48 +0000 Richard Barrett <r.barrett@openinfo.co.uk> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2003, at 13:32, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:12:45 +0000 Richard Barrett <r.barrett@openinfo.co.uk> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2003, at 00:48, J C Lawrence wrote:
For me, and (possibly) for Mailman v3, critical. I use Message IDs as a primary key for my list archives, indexing and several other bits. Changing them, at any point, breaks that.
I confess I was not gazing that far into the future and, not being a Mailman developer, have no influence or knowledge of the architecture of Mailman v3.
This area was discussed on this list extensively a few weeks ago. I suggest reading the archives.
However, offering an immediate fix for an arguably valid criticism of the current stable release that would not have a major destabilizing effect on that stable release seems worthwhile to me.
Fair dinkum, and I've not argued otherwise.
It seems from what you say that your archiving and indexing solution is not standard Mailman internal pipermail archiving so the poor fit of the solution offered with your system is unsurprising.
The archiving system I use is also what I've advocated for Mailman v3, with some level of buy-in.
Bear in mind that the patch only affects the data delivered in response to HTTP requests.
Right, one of the levels I use Message IDs is the user-level, in HTML, in archives, in URLs, and in raw messages. Users regularly quote Message IDs in their messages as text strings ala:
Have a look at message 059F1F1D-227A-11D8-89F4-000A957C9A50@openinfo.co.uk as it goes into this area further and explains several of the bits you are asking about.
-- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.