Re: [hypermail] dir option weirdness

From: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <misiek_at_pld.ORG.PL_at_hypermail-project.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:51:53 +0200
Message-ID: <20030410065153.GA7609_at_arm.t19.ds.pwr.wroc.pl>

On/Dnia Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 06:08:48PM -0500, kent landfield wrote/napisał(a)
> # Note that there is a newer option called folder_by_date which uses
> # the received date and produces results which are better for many purposes
> # (for example, it creates links between the directories).
>
> There was some initial discussion about this along time ago though I don't
> see it in the archives... If I remember right, the concerns were based on
[...]

> My biggy was the first one as someone did just that to an archive I managed
> more than once. To eliminate all of the above, the local time on the system
> was used. If the man page is wrong, let's change it. Note however, it does
> not say the date in the Received header is used. But point taken, the wording
> can be confusing.

You can easily emulate current behaviour by just using date: hypermail -d /some/path/`date +%y/%b`/
You can't do that if you want to use Date/Received - that's why IMO using Date/Received field is better (even if these headers are not trusted).

Another solution would be adding new subsitutions that use Date/Received field.

> As for creating a "web archive using a quite old mbox archive..."
> I do it all the time with no problem. I have separate mboxes for
> the individual period, in my case by month and I use the script
> below to regenerate the entire archive or any section of it at will.
Merge these all mailboxes into big one and then try to do it. How to split that easily? In my case I have one big archive in which messages aren't even sorted by date - they are mixed up.

> Kent Landfield | HYPERMAIL: http://www.hypermail.org/
> Email: kent_at_hypermail.org | RFCS: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

-- 
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz    CS at FoE, Wroclaw University of Technology
arekm_at_sse.pl   AM2-6BONE, 1024/3DB19BBD, arekm(at)ircnet, PLD/Linux

Received on Thu 10 Apr 2003 02:18:32 PM GMT