Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches

2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com>:
> 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. 

That is a very common scenario. And even without that, email taking
different time to get delivered to majordomo is not at all uncomoon.


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

No rush.

-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/