[Mailman-Developers] more 2.1b3++ MIME funnies.

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> writes:

    CVR> Yup. they really serve different purposes. One's designed for
    CVR> MIME, one isn't. So (now, long after it makes sense to think
    CVR> of it for 2.1....) making them separate processes now seems
    CVR> to make sense. but not for 2.1. If someone absolutely
    CVR> positively has to have full MIME with all that stuff, they
    CVR> can force everyone to MIME digests, or do away with
    CVR> digests. to me, it's what I call a "nice to have", not a
    CVR> "gotta have".

I do think some adjustments to the pipeline idea is in order, along
with splitting the two digest formats into two different message
sinks.  The trick will be doing that efficiently, with approachable
configuration management.

    >> And the archive represents a history of...  which version of
    >> the list...  non-digest, text digest, MIME digest???

    CVR> to me, archives always ought to represent to non-digest. the
    CVR> digest versions of things are convenient alternatives, but
    CVR> more or less by definition altered versions. Now, a GOOD
    CVR> archive would store all of that, but allow you the same
    CVR> general parsing restriction setup as mailman now does (or
    CVR> wil).

Remember that there's also the raw(er) mbox archive.  Right now
they're tied, but it could make sense to split those as well.

    >> I do *not* think the above musings imply "don't do it."
    >>

    CVR> Hey, nobody said that Mailman 2.1 was "it", and we could all
    CVR> go off and stop working on it.... (giggle)

Aw shoot.  Honey, cancel my vacation.
-Barry