On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 5/24/21 8:42 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> On 24 May 2021, at 11:47, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > >> wrote: > >>> On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>> > >>>> It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an > >>>> email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not > >>>> much really AFAICT. > >> Well, if you include all lists, the ability for you to findi things by > >> the "most recent posts" or by searching for anything other than a > >> unique message id will likely become less useful. > > Thats a good case for restricting this to the smaller set of lists which > > will > > cover most submissions anyways. With a smaller set we could make the UX > > still > > work without presenting an incredibly long list. > > > > Or, the most recent emails dropdown only cover a set of common lists but > > a search will scan all lists? > > > >> As long as you only ever search by message-id it won't make a difference. > > Without any supporting evidence to back it up, my gut feeling tells me the > > most > > recent mails list is a good/simple way to lower the bar for submissions. > > > > Maybe. I only ever do this by using an exact message-id, since that's > what the web form specifically asks for :-)
The webform lets you either do a free text search, or pick from a list, or enter a message-id, no? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
