On 11/19/2016 07:36 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Magnus,
>
> * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>> * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
>>>> It would make the URLs actually short, but as mentioned upthread, that
>>>> wouldn't work at all if offline. So it'd be a tradeoff between those, but
>>>> so are pretty much all other options that don't include the full
>>> message-id.
>>>
>>> This is a bit of a crazy idea, but in the new list system, couldn't we
>>> add a header which includes "our" surrogate message-id? Or possibly the
>>> entire URL to the message, and maybe the URL for the entire thread?
>> I'd rather not tie those systems in that tightly. I think they are much
>> better off being de-coupled.
> I get that, but...
>
>> That said, what we could do is invent our own "id". We could either use a
>> separate surrogate key, or we could do the sha-1 hash of the messageid. And
>> stick that in a header, which could then be searched for both locally and
>> remotely.
> Yeah, that's a good thought too. I think we'd need to use a SHA1 to
> avoid collisions which means that it'll be a bit longer than if we used
> an actual ID, but it shouldn't be *too* long.
>
I can think of at least one scenario where you might not easily have
access to any invented ID - you're the author and you have mailing list
me-too turned off, so you don't have anything that the mailing list has
inserted. I honestly think we should just stick with the Message-ID
value and get over the ugliness.
Putting the clickable URL in a header("X-Archive-Link" ?) is a good
idea, though. Using my MUA (Thunderbird) that would make it as simple to
get as View Source (Ctrl-U) and a simple C&P, which would make
committers' lives easy. I bet others might appreciate it too.
cheers
andrew