(Fwd) Re: [Mailman-Users] Re: [Mailman-Developers] How to rem
carbonnb at sympatico.ca
Sun Apr 4 19:26:12 EDT 2004
On 5 Apr 2004 at 0:08, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 12:05 PM -0400 2004/04/04, Bryan Carbonnell wrote:
> > And wouldn't it be easier for Barry to implement?
> Maybe. However, we have to consider more than just the
> implementation cost -- there is also the support cost to consider. If
> it costs 10x or 100x as much to support the regex feature because it's
> too flexible and too confusing to too many people, then it's not worth
> the effort.
Fair enough. I never considered that.
> > Do you see my point? If there are an absolutely fixed number of
> > types of headers that could across, then I could see that going
> > your way would work better, but since I can add any header to an
> > outgoing mail that I want, with my e-mail client (like I did with
> > this e-mail), then should the MM admins be given the opportunity to
> > strip them with a RegEx?
> Okay, so a Keep-These-Headers option being restricted to just the
> Is not capable of stripping all possible headers that could
> potentially be generated? Sorry, I don't buy it.
I think that we are talking about 2 different things. Or at least I
misunderstood what you were talking about.
I was thinking from your description,
From: would be selectable to keep or strip
Subject: would be selectable to keep or strip
To: would be selectable to keep or strip
Cc: would be selectable to keep or strip
Date: would be selectable to keep or strip
etc. as SEPARATE individual choices to. Not as a group. Now that I
understand your thinking, I think that this may be a very viable
alternative. Maybe even less of a support issue.
Maybe both what you are thinking and the RegEx would work well
together. The keep/strip for those that want simple and RegEx for
those that want the extra control.
> I'm just not sure that it would be worth the effort to get this
> relatively small additional functionality, given the potential
> additional support cost that would result.
Neither do I. Unfortunately I'm just learning Python, so I don't know
who hard or how easy any of these suggestions are.
> But only Barry could really answer this question.
> No, "safety" would be to strip everything that is not known to be
> safe, such as the minimal list of headers shown above.
I can see that. I'm, personally, not convinced, but then I haven't
been a mail admin as long as you have been.
> > I'm not trying to argue, just trying to get thing straighened out
> > in my mind.
> This is a point of deep discussion amongst the most experienced
> people in the field. You are not expected to fully understand all the
> nuances involved.
I'm not worried about all the nuances involved. I was just trying to
get what we, you and I were discussing, sorted out. And now I realize
that we weren't quite talking about the same things. I was talking
about controling individual headers, separately, and you are talking
about controlling the "basic" headers as a group.
Whose idea is better? Not my call, I'm glad to say. I guess we just
need to wait and see what Barry has in store for us :)
Bryan Carbonnell - carbonnb at sympatico.ca
My reality check bounced.
More information about the Mailman-Developers