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 martin@lispworks.com 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/tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net/...
There are two problems:
- 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/tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net/...
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...
- 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#37...
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.