Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 16:09:11 +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > > On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
> > > > | formail -D 199999 $HOME/msgid.cache
> > > >
> > > > I used it for years.
> > >
> > > I don't parse this well enough to understand what it would do, and I
> > > don't know where to find a procmail reference which would let me read up
> > > on it easily enough to understand quickly. Could you clarify?
> >
> > The trick is in formail (contained in the package procmail). Formail is
> > a pretty generic mail parser which can be used to filter mails (or parts
> > of mails) according to different criteria. Option -D instructs it to set
> > up a Message-ID cache to drop duplicate mails (duplicate in the sense of
> > Message-ID, that is). The number after the -D limits the cache's length.
> >
> > As a careful guy, I have this:
> >
> > :0 Whc: msgid.lock
> > | formail -D 8192 ~/.procmail/msgid.cache
> >
> > :0 a:
> > duplicates
> >
> > The 'c' in the first recipe lets a copy "pass through". The second
> > rule triggers on successful execution of the first one (i.e. a cache
> > hit, "this was a duplicate") and drops the duplicate into the mailbox
> > duplicates, where I can check whether something went wrong. Needless
> > to say, I haven't had to check in the last ten years, but disk space
> > is cheap :)
>
> Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the
> "duplicates" are not duplicates because the headers are different. The
> second problem is - which one do you wish to keep? The third problem
> (related to the second one) is the order in which the messages arrive.
> Is it the mailing list reply first or the Cc:?
Granted, you lose all the information in the header about how the
reply journeyed from Fred to bendel.debian.org and on to yourself
when the list copy arrives after the direct one but, unless you're
taking a special interest in how long messages are taking, what
exactly have you lost?
(OK, your responder uses Bcc: to post to the list, so you don't know
whether this was *only* a private reply. Anyone here doing that?)
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: