On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM, David Jeske <davidj@gmail.com> wrote:

Can you share something about dependency philosophy (besides licensing) in Mailman?

Well, for the official poop you'll have to wait for Barry, but AFAICS archivers aren't restricted to Storm + RESTish (which is what Mailman itself uses) because they're separate applications. If the archiver/web UI is going to be distributed *with* Mailman, Barry would probably prefer Storm + Django because that's what Mailman/Protorius (core and admin web UI, resp.) are using. But I imagine that's negotiable as long as everything is free software.

I don't think the database backend much matters, but Mailman and Django are both happy to use sqlite, I believe.

I'm not a fan of javascript client-side rendering because of the generally poor performance, poor mobile compatibility, and lack of benefit for this kind of application.

Not my pidgin, you'll need to talk to Toshio/Barry about that.

...

AIUI, the current philosophy is that

(1) the communication from Mailman to the archivers will be via LMTP/SMTP, including a Mailman-specific header to identify the message's permalink (currently the SHA1 hash of the message ID in BASE32 format, IIRC); and

Using SMTP for an included archiver would require it be a long running server instead of merely a handler.

Sure, but you're already running a sufficient server, namely your MTA. Of course that may not be efficient. If an mbox or maildir storage is sufficient, any decent MTA/MDA can do that for you. If not, I don't think that writing a separate handler is a big deal; I'm just saying that AIUI the configurable Handler provided with Mailman will certainly know how to do LMTP/ SMTP.

Are we talking about third-party-site archivers here?

That is the motivation for choosing ?MTP as the default transport to archivers, yes.

Steve