Stephen commented on my proposal that instead of storing all downloads on the server, we should only cache recent ones and build the others on request, because many archives are only downloaded once when they are ported to a different archiver. Since this is in contradiction to the suggestion Aurelien made, I'm going to leave my proposal as-is for now. Hopefully the link to this thread in my proposal will be a source of up-to-date information on project constraints during the application review process.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:15 AM, David Udelson <dru5@cornell.edu> wrote:
I'm already using the "jobs" infrastructure provided by the django-extensions package: http://django-extensions.readthedocs.org/en/latest/jobs_scheduling.html
Cool. I didn't know about this extension, but it looks like it does what we need. So the background process would be its own file in the jobs directory, and we could leave it to the admin to setup the crontab?
I have another test server with more current info if you want, but I break it regularly. It's lists-dev.cloud.fedoraproject.org
Thanks for linking this. I got my own local dev server working yesterday, but this one is much more populated.
We do put the attachment in the mbox, as a MIME component like in every email.
I see how this works now. Are the attachments always Base64 encoded?
Another possible "nice-to-have" feature I thought of yesterday is a download link that scripts can use to get archives (e.g. "/download?year=x&month=y"). On the other hand, maybe this is just a security risk that has no actual use case, but I'd still like to have a second opinion on this.
Well, there still is the authentication issue.
I guess getting the scripts to authenticate would be a little complicated, but otherwise does this seem like something worth including? If my proposal gets accepted, I'm ok with leaving this as an open question until it becomes clear whether or not I'm going to have extra time at the end of the summer.
Thanks, David
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Aurelien Bompard <aurelien@bompard.org> wrote:
In my proposal I suggested using any of several asynchronous job queue libraries, such as Celery or Huey. These all use redis as a back-end. Because I have no experience with asynchronous job queues, I'm not sure if this is too much baggage for our purposes. Maybe we just don't want the extra dependencies.
Yeah, we don't want to add another database or an AMQP server just for that. We must keep it simple for admins to deploy.
Regarding cron jobs, there's also django-background-task which is a simple django addon that might do what we need. Again, if we don't want/need the extra dependency, rolling our own cron job should be fairly straight-forward.
I'm already using the "jobs" infrastructure provided by the django-extensions package: http://django-extensions.readthedocs.org/en/latest/jobs_scheduling.html I did consider django-background-task but django-extensions seemed like a better fit, because django-background-task seems written for delayed tasks, not periodic tasks (well, a task could call itself again when done, but it seems like a hack). I'm not opposed to switching to django-background-task if we use the "delayed job" feature or if we need the extra flexibility of choosing exactly how many seconds apart we want our tasks to run.
If we choose to pre-build the mbox files, we can't simply have them served through the webserver, because some lists are private
Then there is also an authentication step?
Yeah, we must use HyperKitty's authentication and check if the user is allowed to see the archive. So the files can't be served by the webserver like static files.
I noticed on the test server that I can't actually look at any of the mailing lists because they're all private.
If you're looking at lists.stg.fedoraproject.org, it's currently very outdated (still running the Python2-compatible branch of Mailman 3). I have another test server with more current info if you want, but I break it regularly. It's lists-dev.cloud.fedoraproject.org
When we create the mbox file, do we simply note that an attachment existed (e.g. "Attachment: myattachment.txt") or do we actually put the attachment in the mbox? AFAIK mbox is a plaintext format, so if the latter is the case then I'm not exactly sure how this would work...
We do put the attachment in the mbox, as a MIME component like in every email. If you choose "view source" when looking at an email with attachments, you'll see how it's done.
Are there going to be any issues handling unicode foreign characters or with file locks? Right now it looks like we should only have one process handling the mbox, but is it possible that more than one could be spawned somehow?
No, mbox files are not designed for concurrent writes, so it's better to have a single process write to them.
Another possible "nice-to-have" feature I thought of yesterday is a download link that scripts can use to get archives (e.g. "/download?year=x&month=y"). On the other hand, maybe this is just a security risk that has no actual use case, but I'd still like to have a second opinion on this.
Well, there still is the authentication issue.
Aurélien
Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/dru5%40cornell.ed...
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9