Re: [Summary] discussion about attachments

From: <>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:43:25 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <>

In our previous episode, Paul Haldane said:

> On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 wrote:
> > As I'm using an "attachnum-" prefix, this covers points 2.1 and 2.3, The
> > -part suffix covers for point 2.4. Finally, as I'm always able to
> > reproduce the same filenames, I cover point 2.2.
> >
> > Does this make sense to you?
> >
> > I have some little extra work to, so that attachnum gets incremented even
> > if the maintainer forbids the storing of a specific type of attachment. It'll
> > then be possible to allow the new type later on without breaking links.
> Yup - that sounds good.
> Only minor downside I can think of at the moment is that if you regenerate
> an archive after deleting a message from near the start of the mailbox,
> then the URLs of subsequent attachments will change. I don't consider
> this a real problem.

Paul, thanks for your comments. I'll go ahead with this attachment work. I'm currently merging my version of hypermail with the public one (almost done), so that we have only one CVS tree.

Note that it's important to never break URLs that point to archives. I want to add something akin to a "blackmail" file where you can put msgid's of messages that should be removed from the archive. Then, we would just skip those messages (erasing any previously related files), but correctly increment the message num counter.  

> > Should we use DIR_PREFIXER/num or just DIR_PREFIXER-num?

> DIR_PREFIXER/num feels slightly neater to me, although DIR_PREFIXER-num
> would probably be more efficient both in terms of indoes used (as you say)
> and possibly access time - don't know if it would make any _noticeable_
> difference.

I agree. I'll stick to DIR_PREFIXER/num and concentrate on some other parts of the code :)

-Jose Received on Thu 02 Sep 1999 04:43:48 PM GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat 13 Mar 2010 03:46:11 AM GMT GMT