Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

On 01/02/2010 15:03, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati<php@beccati.com>:
>> My main concern is that we'd need to overcomplicate the thread detection algorithm so that it better deals with
delayedmessages: as it currently works, the replies to a missing message get linked to the "grand-parent". Injecting
themissing message afterwards will put it at the same level as its replies. If it happens only once in a while I guess
wecan live with it, but definitely not if it happens tens of times a day.
 
>
> That can potentially be a problem.
>
> Consider the case where message A it sent. Mesasge B is a response to
> A, and message C is a response to B. Now assume B is held for
> moderation (because the poser is not on the list, or because it trips
> some other thing), then message C will definitely arrive before
> message B. Is that going to cause problems with this method?
>
> Another case where the same thing will happen is if message delivery
> of B gets for example graylisted, or is just slow from sender B, but
> gets quickly delivered to the author of message A (because of a direct
> CC). In this case, the author of message A may respond to it (making
> message D),and this will again arrive before message B because author
> A is not graylisted.
>
> So the system definitely needs to deal with out-of-order delivery.

Hmm, it looks like I didn't factor in direct CCs when thinking about 
potential problems with the simplified algorithm. Thanks for raising that.

I'll be out of town for a few days, but I will see what I can do when I 
get back.


Cheers
-- 
Matteo Beccati

Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/