| 2012-04-18 18:53:31 |
Barry Warsaw |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2012-04-20 16:14:31 |
Barry Warsaw |
summary |
Add List-Post value to permalink hash input |
Add List-ID value to permalink hash input |
|
| 2012-04-20 17:25:04 |
Barry Warsaw |
description |
Currently, we define the X-Message-ID-Hash as the base32 encoding of the sha1 hash of the Message-ID content (sans angle brackets as defined in RFC 5322). The suggestion is made that List-Post value should be added to this hash so as to be able to distinguish cross-posted messages.
This should be fine, and pretty easy. My only concern is that the header name is now a misnomer.
I wonder, is it worth coming up with a better header? Now's the time to do it since it's likely that there are almost no consumers of this standard.
What about `Permalink-Hash` ? |
Currently, we define the X-Message-ID-Hash as the base32 encoding of the sha1 hash of the Message-ID content (sans angle brackets as defined in RFC 5322). The suggestion is made that List-ID value should be added to this hash so as to be able to distinguish cross-posted messages.
This should be fine, and pretty easy. My only concern is that the header name is now a misnomer.
I wonder, is it worth coming up with a better header? Now's the time to do it since it's likely that there are almost no consumers of this standard.
What about `Permalink-Hash` ? |
|
| 2012-04-20 17:25:34 |
Barry Warsaw |
summary |
Add List-ID value to permalink hash input |
Add Permalink-Hash: header for interoperability with archivers. |
|
| 2012-04-20 17:25:55 |
Barry Warsaw |
summary |
Add Permalink-Hash: header for interoperability with archivers. |
Permalink-Hash: header specification |
|
| 2012-04-20 17:33:28 |
Barry Warsaw |
description |
Currently, we define the X-Message-ID-Hash as the base32 encoding of the sha1 hash of the Message-ID content (sans angle brackets as defined in RFC 5322). The suggestion is made that List-ID value should be added to this hash so as to be able to distinguish cross-posted messages.
This should be fine, and pretty easy. My only concern is that the header name is now a misnomer.
I wonder, is it worth coming up with a better header? Now's the time to do it since it's likely that there are almost no consumers of this standard.
What about `Permalink-Hash` ? |
Currently, we define the X-Message-ID-Hash as the base32 encoding of the sha1 hash of the Message-ID content (sans angle brackets as defined in RFC 5322). The suggestion is made that List-ID value should be added to this hash so as to be able to distinguish cross-posted messages.
This should be fine, and pretty easy. My only concern is that the header name is now a misnomer. I'm suggesting we change this to Permalink-Hash.
Here is the proposed algorithm for calculating the Permalink-Hash
>>> bare_msgid = msg['Message-ID'][1:-1] # remove the angle brackets
>>> h = sha1(bare_msgid)
>>> list_id = msg['List-ID'][1:-1] # remove angle brackets
>>> h.update(list_id)
>>> permalink_hash = b32encode(h.digest())
>>> msg.add_header('Permalink-Hash', permalink_hash, version='1')
Notes:
- If the Message-ID or List-ID values do not both start and end with angle brackets, the entire header value should be used (i.e. only strip off bytes 0 and -1 if they are angle brackets)
- The Permalink-Hash header gets a "version=1" parameter to indicate the version of this spec the header conforms to.
- RFC 5064 defines the Archived-At header, which mm3 already supports. It is suggested that this header would use the permalink hash as the URI directly to this message in the specified archive.
- Some people suggest that the List-ID be explicit in the Permalink-Hash value. I would reject this on the grounds that the value should be opaque. If this information is needed, it should be added to the Archived-At header. |
|
| 2012-09-08 23:35:05 |
Barry Warsaw |
mailman: milestone |
3.0.0b2 |
|
|
