On Mar 21, 2016, at 03:47 AM, Anirudh Dahiya wrote:

1. Reliability - Currently, as I see, the messages are archived in Hyperkitty via a simple POST request, but in the event of some failure(like hk server being down for a while), there is no way the message is being tried to be archived again. Thus are we aiming to add some reliability to the system via the message queue systems?

I think that's correct. Currently if we can't deliver to HK, the message doesn't even get shunted.

Apart from this and extensibility, what all advanteges are we looking forward to as a result of this project?

I think part of it should also be a more robust distributed architecture. We do have some separation now because submitting to HK is a POST, but it still requires a localhost connection (for security purposes).

2. Should I add/mention the potential scope for adding mailman events (like list creation etc) to our archivers?

Probably so.

3. Am I supposed to alter Hyperkitty(as what seems to be mentioned in the project description) or should the basic scope of the project stay about building the pub/sub or message queue interface(as what seems to be mentioned by some of our conversations on irc)

That's up to Aurelien I think. The model of the HK plugin is a good one to follow though because the pub/sub doesn't necessarily need to be part of Core.

Cheers, -Barry