(Fwd) Re: [Mailman-Users] Re: [Mailman-Developers] How to rem

[Bryan Carbonnell]

On 5 Apr 2004 at 0:08, Brad Knowles wrote:

> At 12:05 PM -0400 2004/04/04, Bryan Carbonnell wrote:

> >  And wouldn't it be easier for Barry to implement?
> 
>  Maybe.  However, we have to consider more than just the 
> implementation cost -- there is also the support cost to consider. If
> it costs 10x or 100x as much to support the regex feature because it's
> too flexible and too confusing to too many people, then it's not worth
> the effort.

Fair enough. I never considered that.

> >  Do you see my point? If there are an absolutely fixed number of
> >  types of headers that could across, then I could see that going
> >  your way would work better, but since I can add any header to an
> >  outgoing mail that I want, with my e-mail client (like I did with
> >  this e-mail), then should the MM admins be given the opportunity to
> >  strip them with a RegEx?
> 
>  Okay, so a Keep-These-Headers option being restricted to just the
> following:
> 
>   From:
>   Subject:
>   To:
>   Cc:
>   Date:
> 
>  Is not capable of stripping all possible headers that could 
> potentially be generated?  Sorry, I don't buy it.

I think that we are talking about 2 different things. Or at least I 
misunderstood what you were talking about.

I was thinking from your description,

From: would be selectable to keep or strip
Subject: would be selectable to keep or strip
To: would be selectable to keep or strip
Cc: would be selectable to keep or strip
Date: would be selectable to keep or strip

etc. as SEPARATE individual choices to. Not as a group. Now that I 
understand your thinking, I think that this may be a very viable 
alternative. Maybe even less of a support issue.

Maybe both what you are thinking and the RegEx would work well 
together. The keep/strip for those that want simple and RegEx for 
those that want the extra control.

>  I'm just not sure that it would be worth the effort to get this
> relatively small additional functionality, given the potential
> additional support cost that would result.

Neither do I. Unfortunately I'm just learning Python, so I don't know 
who hard or how easy any of these suggestions are.

>  But only Barry could really answer this question.

Absolutely.

>  No, "safety" would be to strip everything that is not known to be
> safe, such as the minimal list of headers shown above.

I can see that. I'm, personally, not convinced, but then I haven't 
been a mail admin as long as you have been.

> >  I'm not trying to argue, just trying to get thing straighened out
> >  in my mind.
> 
>  This is a point of deep discussion amongst the most experienced
> people in the field.  You are not expected to fully understand all the
> nuances involved.

I'm not worried about all the nuances involved. I was just trying to 
get what we, you and I were discussing, sorted out. And now I realize 
that we weren't quite talking about the same things. I was talking 
about controling individual headers, separately, and you are talking 
about controlling the "basic" headers as a group.

Whose idea is better? Not my call, I'm glad to say. I guess we just 
need to wait and see what Barry has in store for us :)

-- 
Bryan Carbonnell - carbonnb at sympatico.ca
My reality check bounced.