Re: [Mailman-Developers] Requirements for a new archiver

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:28:50 -0500 Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 17:08, PieterB wrote:
When Mailman decorates a message for copying to the list, I want to be able to include a link to the archived message in the footer. The problem is that there is little or no connection between the process doing the decoration and the process doing the archiving, and in fact the message may be posted to the list long before the archiver gets a crack at it.
If the URL is predictably based on the Message-ID this is not a problem.
So I don't want to have to ask the archiver for that url. I want Mailman to be able to calculate it from something unique in the message, and have the archiver agree on the algorithm, so that it (or some other translation layer) can do the mapping back to the archived article. Or, Mailman should be able to calculate a unique id for the article and stuff that in a header for the archiver to index on.
Quite, this is how/why NNTP uses Message-IDs are unique indexing qualifiers.
--
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.

On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 00:41, J C Lawrence wrote:
If the URL is predictably based on the Message-ID this is not a problem.
Quite, this is how/why NNTP uses Message-IDs are unique indexing qualifiers.
Yep, and we'd have to do the same thing (ensure that Message-IDs are unique). Note that we sometimes get shit from people who complain about Mailman's NNTP posting code modifying Message-IDs to adhere to the stricter NNTP requirements. But Mailman can't rely on the good graces of remote mail tools to ensure globally unique Message-IDs, so it has to check and munge if it gets a dup (or, it's within it's right to treat a dup /as/ a dup, e.g. discarding it).
-Barry

At 12:41 AM -0500 2003/10/28, J C Lawrence wrote:
Quite, this is how/why NNTP uses Message-IDs are unique indexing qualifiers.
Problem is that client-assigned message-ids are not guaranteed
unique. Too many people are using RFC 1918 private addressing space, and if the machine doesn't know it's own name, then it stuffs in just the IP address for that portion. Everything else could quite feasibly collide, and you'd wind up with multiple non-unique message-ids.
You need a guaranteed unique id to be used as a primary index field.
-- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
participants (3)
-
Barry Warsaw
-
Brad Knowles
-
J C Lawrence