Re: Mailman3 web interface

Hi Martin,

Thanks for having a look around! I think your findings make a nice case for
retaining the original archive.

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 2:19 PM Martin Simmons <[email protected]> wrote:

> >>>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 23:55:05 +0200, Erik Huelsmann said:
> >
> > The web interface for the new mailman version is at
> > https://mailman3.common-lisp.net/postorius/ for mailing list
> administration
> > and https://mailman3.common-lisp.net/hyperkitty/ for the archives.
> >
> > Let me know if you find irregularities or have other remarks.
>
> It looks nice.
>
> I had a play with the new archives and found something strange with this
> thread:
>
>
> https://mailman3.common-lisp.net/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/AB3VMJNMVYAIKVEDJQNERCRRUFO4JGYN/
>
> There are two problems:
>
> 1. It appears to have only has two messages, one from Jingtao Xu and a
> reply
> from Hans Hübner, However, there is another thread in the archive that is a
> reply to Hans Hübner's message:
>
>
> https://mailman3.common-lisp.net/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/OT46NCYD5CHDZPPQVHP6TEFJ2BGGNNQE/
>
> Downloading the threads shows matching message-id and in-reply-to headers
> (<CABj0bw+=GVc60=Y7F1OX=9F6us5KN6cZvd1yx6xsURsaQa8sKA@mail.gmail.com>) so
> why
> is it a separate thread?
>

I have no idea at all. In the original archive, they're indeed all part of
a single thread. I had no trouble using the administrative interface to
merge the various threads into a single one, but it was manual work indeed.
I did search around on the web, but didn't find any information or
complaints about others running into the same problems...


> 2. The dates displayed for the messages are in April 2015, but the messages
> themselves quote dates from May 2013.
>
> The old pipermail archives (from May 2013) don't show these problems:
>
>
> https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/tbnl-devel/2013-May/thread.html#3703
>
>
This one I understand better: the migration procedure suggests to check the
historic mboxes for import problems, including date formatting issues. The
pre-import check script I was supposed to use did change(fix?) some dates;
apparently, not all for the better. There's two ways forward on this one:
we can leave them as-is and keep hosting the original archives. Or I could
throw away the original imports and re-import (hoping the import scripts
didn't fix more than incorrectly fixing these dates). I'm inclined to do
the former, because I know that there were a few mails discarded for not
being ascii-only mail headers (possibly someone used UTF8 or Latin1
characters in their name, which isn't allowed by the RFCs).

Regards,

Erik.

-- 
Bye,

Erik.

http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.