Alexander Sulfrian writes:
> If the list_name would be also reversed, it could lead to some
> surprising subtree clashing. For example web2.0 would be in the same
> subtree like something1.0 (people sometimes use strange list
> names...).
I agree that list_name should *not* be reversed; it is an atom.
This "atomicity" is a problem. We have three different namespaces and
syntaxes to deal with here: RFC 5322 email addresses, RFC 2919
List-Ids, and RFC 5536. In RFC 5322, there's a special class, the
"dotted-atom", which may be used in the mailbox component of an
address (and thus denotes an atomic resource). But not in RFC 5536,
where dots aren't allowed in newsgroup name components. I think this
is a problem for post-GSoC, though.
> Even with the current implementation the group names are
> ugly.
I would expect that MUA presentations will deal with this. For
example, exploiting the hierarchy, the dots could appear as
breadcrumbs:
mailman > org > python > mailman-developers
MAILMAN-DEVELOPERS
[summary lines]
[current message header info such as author, subject, date]
[current message body]
> Maybe we should eliminate the dots from the list names by default
> and only allow separate groups with the alias mechanism?
Quite possibly, but don't worry about it for the purposes of GSoC I
think. The worst that would happen is that a few, relatively unusual
lists would be inaccessible. But I think dealing with this requires
some thought, so let's not get committed to a hasty design. Document
that dotted names may show strange behavior (including being
inaccessible), and move on for now.
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
Mailman-Developers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
