Andrew Daviel wrote:
I found X-No-Archive in wikipedia that was apparently honored by
google when archiving usenet.
Keep in mind that all archivers probably archive the message anyway but
might treat X-No-Archive: yes as a cue to not release that message to
public queries. In other words,
Mark Sapiro writes:
As I posted earlier Mailman does not archive a message with an
X-No-Archive: header. It doesn't look at the content which could be yes,
no, empty or anything else. This is deliberate.
Yes, I understand that, and the fact that the code uses .has_key makes
it clear that
Andrew Daviel writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive says
If the X-No-Archive field is set to No, or the field is absent, a
Usenet archive will not recognize a prohibition on archiving the message.
Experimentally, if I add X-No-Archive: no in Alpine or
Thunderbird,
On 02/12/2015 12:28 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Andrew Daviel writes:
Experimentally, if I add X-No-Archive: no in Alpine or
Thunderbird, pipermail will not archive the message,
Do you consider that a bug?
I'm not sure why anybody would use X-No-Archive: no in reality, I
Does Mailman normalize dates on emails to UTC?
It seems like a good idea to me to normalise dates on emails to UTC but you
guys would know best.
What would be the pros and cons of email date normalisation to UTC? Are there
good reasons not to?
Which date field on an email is even the right
On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:50 PM, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
I believe this is the case for two reasons:
1. Structurally: Few search engine companies will throw away an opportunity
to collect data when there's so much for that organization to gain by
indexing that data.
2. Specific to Google: When
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Andrew Daviel writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive says
If the X-No-Archive field is set to No, or the field is absent, a
Usenet archive will not recognize a prohibition on archiving the message.
Experimentally, if I add
J.B. Nicholson-Owens writes:
Overall, I think people are better off understanding that their
boilerplate is not binding on most people (if anyone) and they need
to be more careful in what they send.
I don't think anyone here disagrees. On the other hand, people *do*
have an expectation of
Hi,
I am working on bug #967951.Following is the diff file for my changes.
http://pastebin.com/x7LMiTCR
I am getting the following error on running the tests.
http://pastebin.com/NFU3Gbrc
Can someone please help as i unable to understand why i am getting these
errors!
Any help would be
On Feb 12, 2015, at 11:09 PM, Andrew Stuart wrote:
Does Mailman normalize dates on emails to UTC?
I'm not sure which dates you mean. Are you asking whether Mailman should
modify the Date header on emails? Definitely not. :)
Ideally I do think any internal dates gathered from external sources
On 2/11/2015 7:37 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Only because it already has, except for the RFC, and
http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/ietf-mail-attributes.html
mentions the definition of X-No-Archive: Yes.
In practice, I believe most of the standard (Mailman's Pipermail[1],
I checked and these two lists are responsible. One uses
'No' and the other uses 'no' for every message. I can't speak
to the intention. There are an impressive number of headers
on each message including DKIM but I don't see a clue as
to the list server software.
12 matches
Mail list logo
