In 2.0.1 pipermail.py takes any user-included Reply-To header and uses that the address of the sender in the archives.
In other words, if I post a message to list that looks like this:
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:03:03 -0800 (PST) From: Darrell Fuhriman <darrell@grumblesmurf.net> Subject: something really neat! To: moderated-list@grumblesmurf.net Reply-To: not-moderated-list@elsewhere.com
in the Archives, this gets re-written to be:
Darrell Fuhriman <mailto:not-moderated-list@grumblesmurf.net>
I maintain that this behavior is incorrect.
For instance, I just started a moderated, announce-only list. I would like to give the poster the option of redirecting followups for discussion to another list.
I'm happy to write a patch to change the behavior, but I'd like to know what folks think the correct behavior should be.
I think that including the Reply-To as a separate header is the appropriate thing to do, but I'm soliciting other opinions.
Secondly, archiving is a big old pig and slows down list processing. Would it be possible to re-write the code so that the archiver forks off? Once again, I'm willing to do it, but I want to make sure that people will be happy with the design.
Darrell
"DF" == Darrell Fuhriman <darrell@grumblesmurf.net> writes:
DF> In 2.0.1 pipermail.py takes any user-included Reply-To header
DF> and uses that the address of the sender in the archives.
DF> In other words, if I post a message to list that looks like
DF> this:
| Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:03:03 -0800 (PST)
| From: Darrell Fuhriman <darrell@grumblesmurf.net>
| Subject: something really neat!
| To: moderated-list@grumblesmurf.net
| Reply-To: not-moderated-list@elsewhere.com
DF> in the Archives, this gets re-written to be:
DF> Darrell Fuhriman <mailto:not-moderated-list@grumblesmurf.net>
DF> I maintain that this behavior is incorrect.Agreed.
DF> For instance, I just started a moderated, announce-only list.
DF> I would like to give the poster the option of redirecting
DF> followups for discussion to another list.
DF> I'm happy to write a patch to change the behavior, but I'd
DF> like to know what folks think the correct behavior should be.I think that it should use the address provided in the From: line. A patch would be great.
DF> I think that including the Reply-To as a separate header is
DF> the appropriate thing to do, but I'm soliciting other
DF> opinions.
DF> Secondly, archiving is a big old pig and slows down list
DF> processing. Would it be possible to re-write the code so that
DF> the archiver forks off? Once again, I'm willing to do it, but
DF> I want to make sure that people will be happy with the design.No need. Things are going to be much different in 2.1. Archiving is no longer in the critical path for general list delivery.
-Barry
participants (2)
-
barry＠digicool.com -
Darrell Fuhriman