Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On 01/02/2010 17:28, Tom Lane wrote: Matteo Beccati writes: My main concern is that we'd need to overcomplicate the thread detection algorithm so that it better deals with delayed messages: as it currently works, the replies to a missing message get linked to the "grand-parent". Injecting the m

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

2010/2/1 Robert Haas : > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:        * A sends a message        * B replies, cc'ing A and the list        * B's reply to list is delayed by greylisting    

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>* A sends a message >>* B replies, cc'ing A and the list >>* B's reply to list is delayed by greylisting >>* A replies to B's reply (cc'ing list) >>* A's reply goes through immediately

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>>        * A sends a message >>>        * B replies, cc'ing A and the list >>>        * B's reply to list is delayed by greylisting >>>        * A replies to B's reply (cc

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Matteo Beccati writes: >> My main concern is that we'd need to overcomplicate the thread detection >> algorithm so that it better deals with delayed messages: as it currently >> works, the replies to a missing message get linked to the >> "grand-

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Matteo Beccati writes: > My main concern is that we'd need to overcomplicate the thread detection > algorithm so that it better deals with delayed messages: as it currently > works, the replies to a missing message get linked to the > "grand-parent". Injecting the missing message afterwards wil

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati : > On 01/02/2010 15:03, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> 2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati: >>> >>> My main concern is that we'd need to overcomplicate the thread detection >>> algorithm so that it better deals with delayed messages: as it currently >>> works, the replies to a missing

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On 01/02/2010 15:03, Magnus Hagander wrote: 2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati: My main concern is that we'd need to overcomplicate the thread detection algorithm so that it better deals with delayed messages: as it currently works, the replies to a missing message get linked to the "grand-parent". Injec

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati : > On 01/02/2010 10:26, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> Does the MBOX importer support incremental loading? Because majordomo >> spits out MBOX files for us already. > > Unfortunately the aoximport shell command doesn't support incremental loading. > >> One option could be to

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On 01/02/2010 10:26, Magnus Hagander wrote: Does the MBOX importer support incremental loading? Because majordomo spits out MBOX files for us already. Unfortunately the aoximport shell command doesn't support incremental loading. One option could be to use SMTP with a subscription as the pr

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

2010/2/1 Matteo Beccati : > On 01/02/2010 03:27, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >> Matteo Beccati wrote: >> >>> Incidentally, I've just found out that the mailing lists are >>> dropping some messages. According to my qmail logs the AOX account >>> never received Joe's message yesterday, nor quite a few o

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On 01/02/2010 03:27, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Matteo Beccati wrote: Incidentally, I've just found out that the mailing lists are dropping some messages. According to my qmail logs the AOX account never received Joe's message yesterday, nor quite a few others: M156252, M156259, M156262, M156273, M

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Matteo Beccati wrote: > Incidentally, I've just found out that the mailing lists are > dropping some messages. According to my qmail logs the AOX account > never received Joe's message yesterday, nor quite a few others: > > M156252, M156259, M156262, M156273, M156275 > > and I've verified that i

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 15:09, Matteo Beccati wrote: > On 31/01/2010 13:45, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 22:43, Matteo Beccati  wrote: >>> >>> On 30/01/2010 17:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote: * While I don't personally care, some are going to insist that the site w

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On 31/01/2010 13:45, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 22:43, Matteo Beccati wrote: On 30/01/2010 17:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote: * While I don't personally care, some are going to insist that the site works with Javascript disabled. I didn't try but from your description it doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 22:43, Matteo Beccati wrote: > On 30/01/2010 17:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> * While I don't personally care, some are going to insist that the site >> works with Javascript disabled.  I didn't try but from your description >> it doesn't seem like it would.  Is this easily

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On 30/01/2010 22:18, Joe Conway wrote: On 01/30/2010 01:14 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: Matteo Beccati writes: I've been following the various suggestions. Please take a look at the updated archives proof of concept: http://archives.beccati.org/ I like the features a lot, and the only remark

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On 30/01/2010 17:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Matteo Beccati wrote: Il 19/01/2010 09:44, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: As long as the templating is separated from the code, it doesn't matter if it's a dedicated templating engine or PHP. The point being, focus on the contents and interface, porting t

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On 01/30/2010 01:14 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Matteo Beccati writes: >> I've been following the various suggestions. Please take a look at the >> updated archives proof of concept: >> >> http://archives.beccati.org/ > > I like the features a lot, and the only remarks I can think about are > b

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Matteo Beccati writes: > I've been following the various suggestions. Please take a look at the > updated archives proof of concept: > > http://archives.beccati.org/ I like the features a lot, and the only remarks I can think about are bikeschedding, so I'll let it to the web team when they integ

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Matteo Beccati wrote: > Il 19/01/2010 09:44, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: > >As long as the templating is separated from the code, it doesn't > >matter if it's a dedicated templating engine or PHP. The point being, > >focus on the contents and interface, porting the actual > >HTML-generation is like

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 19/01/2010 09:44, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: As long as the templating is separated from the code, it doesn't matter if it's a dedicated templating engine or PHP. The point being, focus on the contents and interface, porting the actual HTML-generation is likely to be easy compared to that.

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:11, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Il 18/01/2010 18:42, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: >> >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 18:31, Matteo Beccati  wrote: >>> >>> Il 18/01/2010 15:55, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: If it wasn't for the fact that we're knee deep in two other major >

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 18/01/2010 18:42, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 18:31, Matteo Beccati wrote: Il 18/01/2010 15:55, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: If it wasn't for the fact that we're knee deep in two other major projects for the infrastructure team right now, I'd be all over this :-) But

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 18:35, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Il 18/01/2010 16:19, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: >> >> Magnus Hagander  writes: >>> >>> Also, I tink one of the main issues with the archives today that >>> people bring up is the inability to have threads cross months. I think >>> that shoul

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 18:31, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Il 18/01/2010 15:55, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: >> >> If it wasn't for the fact that we're knee deep in two other major >> projects for the infrastructure team right now, I'd be all over this >> :-) But we really need to complete that before

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 18/01/2010 16:19, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: Magnus Hagander writes: Also, I tink one of the main issues with the archives today that people bring up is the inability to have threads cross months. I think that should be fixed. Basically, get rid of the grouping by month for a more dynamic

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 18/01/2010 15:55, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: If it wasn't for the fact that we're knee deep in two other major projects for the infrastructure team right now, I'd be all over this :-) But we really need to complete that before we put anything new in production here. Sure, that's completely

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Magnus Hagander wrote: > 2010/1/18 Matteo Beccati : > > My question now is... what next? :) Gee, I disappear for a week and look what happens -- we get streaming replication, a revamped archives site, and maybe something else that I haven't seen yet. I love it :-) > If it wasn't for the fact th

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Magnus Hagander writes: > Also, I tink one of the main issues with the archives today that > people bring up is the inability to have threads cross months. I think > that should be fixed. Basically, get rid of the grouping by month for > a more dynamic way to browse. Clic a mail in a thread withi

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

2010/1/18 Matteo Beccati : > Il 16/01/2010 14:21, Matteo Beccati ha scritto: >> >> Il 16/01/2010 11:48, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: >>> >>> Matteo Beccati writes: Anyway, I've made further changes and I would say that at this point the PoC is feature complete. There surely are

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 16/01/2010 14:21, Matteo Beccati ha scritto: Il 16/01/2010 11:48, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: Matteo Beccati writes: Anyway, I've made further changes and I would say that at this point the PoC is feature complete. There surely are still some rough edges and a few things to clean up, but I'

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 16/01/2010 11:48, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: Matteo Beccati writes: Anyway, I've made further changes and I would say that at this point the PoC is feature complete. There surely are still some rough edges and a few things to clean up, but I'd like to get your feedback once again: http://

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Matteo Beccati writes: > Anyway, I've made further changes and I would say that at this point the PoC > is feature complete. There surely are still some rough edges and a few > things to clean up, but I'd like to get your feedback once again: > > http://archives.beccati.org I've been clicking aro

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Hi everyone, Il 14/01/2010 19:36, David Fetter ha scritto: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 03:08:22PM +0100, Matteo Beccati wrote: Il 14/01/2010 14:39, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: Matteo Beccati writes:> Any improvements to sorting are welcome :) ... ARRAY[uid] ... Thanks David, using

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 03:08:22PM +0100, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Il 14/01/2010 14:39, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: > >Matteo Beccati writes: > >>I've extended AOX with a trigger that takes care of filling a separate table > >>that's used to display the index pages. The new table also stores threa

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 16:06, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Il 14/01/2010 15:47, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: >> >> Matteo Beccati  writes: >>> >>> WITH RECURSIVE t (mailbox, uid, date, subject, sender, has_attachments, >>> parent_uid, idx, depth) AS ( >>>   SELECT mailbox, uid, date, subject, sender,

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 14/01/2010 15:47, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: Matteo Beccati writes: WITH RECURSIVE t (mailbox, uid, date, subject, sender, has_attachments, parent_uid, idx, depth) AS ( SELECT mailbox, uid, date, subject, sender, has_attachments, parent_uid, uid::text, 1 FROM arc_messages WHERE pa

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Matteo Beccati writes: > WITH RECURSIVE t (mailbox, uid, date, subject, sender, has_attachments, > parent_uid, idx, depth) AS ( > SELECT mailbox, uid, date, subject, sender, has_attachments, parent_uid, > uid::text, 1 > FROM arc_messages > WHERE parent_uid IS NULL AND mailbox = 15 > UNION

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Il 14/01/2010 14:46, Dave Page ha scritto: >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine >>  wrote: >>> >>> Matteo Beccati  writes: I've extended AOX with a trigger that takes care of filling a separate table t

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 14/01/2010 14:46, Dave Page ha scritto: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: Matteo Beccati writes: I've extended AOX with a trigger that takes care of filling a separate table that's used to display the index pages. The new table also stores threading information (sta

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 14/01/2010 14:39, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: Matteo Beccati writes: I've extended AOX with a trigger that takes care of filling a separate table that's used to display the index pages. The new table also stores threading information (standard headers + Exchange headers support) and whether

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Matteo Beccati writes: >> I've extended AOX with a trigger that takes care of filling a separate table >> that's used to display the index pages. The new table also stores threading >> information (standard headers + Exchange headers supp

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Matteo Beccati writes: > I've extended AOX with a trigger that takes care of filling a separate table > that's used to display the index pages. The new table also stores threading > information (standard headers + Exchange headers support) and whether or not > the email has attachments. > > Please

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 14/01/2010 08:22, Matteo Beccati ha scritto: Hi, 3) A nice set of SQL queries to return message, parts, threads, folders based on $criteria (search, id, folder, etc) I guess Matteo's working on that… Right, but this is where I want to see the AOX schema "imporove"... In ways like adding

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Hi, 3) A nice set of SQL queries to return message, parts, threads, folders based on $criteria (search, id, folder, etc) I guess Matteo's working on that… Right, but this is where I want to see the AOX schema "imporove"... In ways like adding persistant tables for threading, which are up

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Aidan Van Dyk writes: >> aox has that either as a bulk importer or as a MDA. > > Yup, LMTP is ideally suited for that too. Yes. >> > 3) A nice set of SQL queries to return message, parts, threads, >> >folders based on $criteria (search, id, folder, etc) >> >> I guess Matteo's working on tha

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

* Dimitri Fontaine [100112 16:28]: > > 1) A nice normalized DB schema representing mail messages and their > >relations to other message and "recipients" (or "folders") > > We're now hoping that this one will fit: > > http://www.archiveopteryx.org/schema Yup, and it provides a lot more t

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Aidan Van Dyk writes: > I'll note that the whole idea of a "email archive" interface might be a > very good "advocacy" project as well. AOX might not be a perfect fit, > but it could be a good learning experience... Really, all the PG mail > archives need is: > > 1) A nice normalized DB schema r

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 12/01/2010 21:04, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 20:56, Matteo Beccati wrote: Il 12/01/2010 10:30, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: The problem is usually with strange looking emails with 15 different MIME types. If we can figure out the proper way to render that, the rest

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

I'll note that the whole idea of a "email archive" interface might be a very good "advocacy" project as well. AOX might not be a perfect fit, but it could be a good learning experience... Really, all the PG mail archives need is: 1) A nice normalized DB schema representing mail messages and thei

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 20:56, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Il 12/01/2010 10:30, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: >> >> The problem is usually with strange looking emails with 15 different >> MIME types. If we can figure out the proper way to render that, the >> rest really is just a SMOP. > > Yeah, I was e

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 12/01/2010 19:54, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 18:34, Dave Page wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" writes: On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:24 +0530, Dave Page wrote: So just to put this into perspective and give anyone paying atten

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 12/01/2010 10:30, Magnus Hagander ha scritto: The problem is usually with strange looking emails with 15 different MIME types. If we can figure out the proper way to render that, the rest really is just a SMOP. Yeah, I was expecting some, but all the message I've looked at seemed to be work

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 18:34, Dave Page wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> "Joshua D. Drake" writes: >>> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:24 +0530, Dave Page wrote: So just to put this into perspective and give anyone paying attention an idea of the pain that lies a

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: >> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:24 +0530, Dave Page wrote: >>> So just to put this into perspective and give anyone paying attention >>> an idea of the pain that lies ahead should they decide to work on >>> this: >>> >>> -

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 11:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Or, we just leave the current infrastructure in place and use a new one > > for all new messages going forward. We shouldn't limit our ability to > > have a decent system due to decisions of the past. > > -1. What's the point of having archi

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

"Joshua D. Drake" writes: > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:24 +0530, Dave Page wrote: >> So just to put this into perspective and give anyone paying attention >> an idea of the pain that lies ahead should they decide to work on >> this: >> >> - We need to import the old archives (of which there are hun

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:24 +0530, Dave Page wrote: > 2010/1/12 Matteo Beccati : > > So, I've decided to spend a bit more time on this and here is a proof of > > concept web app that displays mailing list archives reading from the AOX > > database: > > > > http://archives.beccati.org/ > > Seems

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 15:00, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > (Many thanks to Dimitri for bringing this thread to my attention.) > > At 2010-01-11 10:46:10 +0100, mag...@hagander.net wrote: >> >> As for AOX, my understanding is that it is no longer maintained, so >> I'd be worried about choosing such

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:05, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Dave Page writes: >> 2010/1/12 Matteo Beccati : >>> So, I've decided to spend a bit more time on this and here is a proof of >>> concept web app that displays mailing list archives reading from the AOX >>> database: >>> >>> http://archive

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Dave Page writes: > 2010/1/12 Matteo Beccati : >> So, I've decided to spend a bit more time on this and here is a proof of >> concept web app that displays mailing list archives reading from the AOX >> database: >> >> http://archives.beccati.org/ > > Seems to work. Hehe, nice a beginning! > So

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

2010/1/12 Matteo Beccati : > So, I've decided to spend a bit more time on this and here is a proof of > concept web app that displays mailing list archives reading from the AOX > database: > > http://archives.beccati.org/ Seems to work. > Please take it as an exercise I've made trying to learn

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 11/01/2010 15:00, Abhijit Menon-Sen ha scritto: I'll keep this short: Oryx, the company behind Archiveopteryx (aox), is no longer around, but the software is still maintained. The developers (myself included) are still interested in keeping it alive. It's been a while since the last release, b

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

(Many thanks to Dimitri for bringing this thread to my attention.) At 2010-01-11 10:46:10 +0100, mag...@hagander.net wrote: > > As for AOX, my understanding is that it is no longer maintained, so > I'd be worried about choosing such a solution for a complex problem. I'll keep this short: Oryx, th

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Magnus Hagander wrote: No, the current archiver is a set of MBOX files that are processed incrementally by mhonarc. (yes, this is why it doesn't scale) *search* is in a postgresql database, but it doesn't contain the entire messages - doesn't have attachments for examples - only the parts it

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Dimitri Fontaine writes: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> As for AOX, my understanding is that it is no longer maintained, so >> I'd be worried about choosing such a solution for a complex problem. >> But it's open for discussion. > > Ouch. It seems that the company baking the development is dead, b

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

2010/1/11 Dimitri Fontaine : > Dave Page writes: >>> I recall having tried AOX a long time ago but I can't remember the reason >>> why I was not satisfied. I guess I can give another try by setting up a test >>> ML archive. >> >> I tried it too, before I started writing the new prototype archiver

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Dave Page writes: >> I recall having tried AOX a long time ago but I can't remember the reason >> why I was not satisfied. I guess I can give another try by setting up a test >> ML archive. > > I tried it too, before I started writing the new prototype archiver > from scratch. I too forget why I g

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Magnus Hagander writes: > As for AOX, my understanding is that it is no longer maintained, so > I'd be worried about choosing such a solution for a complex problem. > But it's open for discussion. Ouch. -- dim -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make change

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Il 11/01/2010 12:58, Dave Page ha scritto: On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Matteo Beccati wrote: I recall having tried AOX a long time ago but I can't remember the reason why I was not satisfied. I guess I can give another try by setting up a test ML archive. I tried it too, before I started

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Hi, > > Il 11/01/2010 11:18, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: >> >> AOX is already a database backed email solution, offering an archive >> page with searching. I believe the searching is baked by tsearch >> indexing. That's why I think it'd be

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Hi, Il 11/01/2010 11:18, Dimitri Fontaine ha scritto: AOX is already a database backed email solution, offering an archive page with searching. I believe the searching is baked by tsearch indexing. That's why I think it'd be suitable. They already archive and offer search over one of our mailin

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Absolutely. The month boundary problem boils down to the fact that > Mhonarc does not scale very well, so we can't have mboxes that are too > large. This is why most people split their archives per month, and then > each month is published as an independent Mhonarc outpu

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

2010/1/11 Alvaro Herrera : > Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan writes: >> > That is assuming that the MUA gives you the option of specifying the >> > attachment MIME type. Many (including mine) do not. It would mean an extra >> > step - I'd have to gzip each patch or something like that. T

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > That is assuming that the MUA gives you the option of specifying the > > attachment MIME type. Many (including mine) do not. It would mean an extra > > step - I'd have to gzip each patch or something like that. That would be > > unfortunate,as w

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Andrew Dunstan writes: > That is assuming that the MUA gives you the option of specifying the > attachment MIME type. Many (including mine) do not. It would mean an extra > step - I'd have to gzip each patch or something like that. That would be > unfortunate,as well as imposing extra effort, beca

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Tim Bunce wrote: > > > Try this > > > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org/msgtxt.php?id=20100108124613.gl2...@timac.local > > That looks like it dumps the raw message. That'll cause problems for any > messages using quoted-printable encoding. I'd hazard a guess it also > won't do thing right th

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Tim Bunce wrote: It seems that people wanting to send in a patch have two options: send it as text/(something) so it's readable on the archive web page but not copy-n-paste'able because of wordwrapping, or set it as application/octet-stream so it's downloadable but not readable on the web page.

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 02:17:27AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > Tim Bunce's recent patch has been mangled apparently by the list > > > archives. He sent it as an attachment, and that's how I have it in > > > my mailbox, so why isn't it

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > Tim Bunce's recent patch has been mangled apparently by the list > > archives. He sent it as an attachment, and that's how I have it in > > my mailbox, so why isn't it appearing as such in the web archive so > > that it can be nicely downloaded

Re: [HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Tim Bunce's recent patch has been mangled apparently by the list > archives. He sent it as an attachment, and that's how I have it in > my mailbox, so why isn't it appearing as such in the web archive so > that it can be nicely downloaded? See >

[HACKERS] mailing list archiver chewing patches

Tim Bunce's recent patch has been mangled apparently by the list archives. He sent it as an attachment, and that's how I have it in my mailbox, so why isn't it appearing as such in the web archive so that it can be nicely downloaded? See