[Lurker-users] Re: [Mailman-Users] external archiver second time

[Wesley W. Terpstra]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:58:35PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> On 17/06/2003 Richard Barrett wrote:
> > >i still have in my mm_cfg.py:
> > >PUBLIC_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER = 'lurker-index -l `lurker-list -c 
> > >/etc/lurker/lurker.conf | grep -B2 "^%(listname)s$"| head -n1` -m'
> > 
> > It seems your trouble is with the fancy footwork you are trying to
> > perform with lurker-list, grep and head to translate a
> > mailman-proper-listname to a short-lurker-listname.
> 
> mh, i don't like this workaround either. but it has to be: lurker
> supports only 32 chars per listname, and max 16 is recommented. that is,
> because lurker is using these names in urls, and long urls suck.
> so, mailman itself has no listname limitation. how to get these two
> paradoxes working together? only with an acronym of mailman listname for
> lurker. so i create a (hopefully) unique acronym at creating lurker.conf
> now every mail has to be imported to the list with it's acronym.
> 
> > The efficiency of this seems to me to be fairly questionable, particularly 
> > when you consider the use of the short 'list' names is supposed to be an 
> > efficiency measure.

I agree with Richard; this is too much work. Personally I would just not
bother. If the user has more than 32 characters in a mailman mailing list
name, just emit a warning on config generation and drop that list.

This failure case is so rare that it makes no sense to execute all this
shell hackery for all lists. The user can manually create a rule for the
long lists if he is so inclined. Just document the warning and work-around.

BTW, the short url is only one of the reasons I limit the length. =)

> > Personally, if I thought it was worth the effort to have these
> > abbrieviated list names I'd find a better method of doing that mapping
> > than using grep.

Indeed; I didn't really intend for lurker-list to be used in this manner.
Besides, all list fields other than the id are not guaranteed to be unique
anyways...

> doesn't look so. when i set in mm_cfg.py:
> PUBLIC_EXTERNAL_ARCHIVER = "echo foobar"
> mailman still grumbles:
> ==> /var/log/mailman/error <==
> Jun 17 13:26:59 2003 (1464) external archiver non-zero exit status: 1
> 
> so that seems not to be a problem of lurker.

That convinces me, but I am biased. :-)

I presume lurker-index is working outside of mailman?
Does mailman set any child-enforced resource limits ala postfix?

-- 
Wes