On August 27, 1999 at 01:34, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
> As far as separation of archives by month, here's what's held me up.
> Again, patches are welcome, but it's a slightly challenging issue. I
> understand many lists are interested in this feature (although I don't
> really understand why, since I'd never use it myself).
For one, archive updates are quicker since archive sizes do not
get out-of-hand.
> 1) Internal management of files and directories -- what to do?
I am not sure how things exactly work now, but as message come
in, they can be filed by date into directories with timestamp names.
For example:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/199908
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/199907
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/199906
...
Which then can be directly associated with archive directories.
A top-level index would have to be generated listing all the months
like some sites do.
> 2) Do we need to automatically detect very low traffic lists? How?
This one is tough. An alternative is to base the "breaks" by
mail volume count. Once an archive gets a certain size, start
the next period archive. Some logic would be needed to perform
breaks at reasonable periods to avoid ad-hoc listings. Maybe make
months as the boudary points, but a given period may comprise more
than a single month.
> 3) What type of HTML layout would work well?
I haven't played with this idea yet. It seems the date index
is the one to really decide. I think the current date listing
can be improved a bit. Since multi-page is used, I do not know
if it is critical to do alternative listings based on volume.
> 4) Can this be accomplished without adding much complexity?
Possibly, depends on how the current system works. I'll need
to find some time to see how you do things currently (in detail).
> 5) How to rebuild the archive from raw mail at any time?
I think if the raw mail is stored in a format where the HTML archives
are mirrors of it, then rebuilding from raw source should be
straight-forward.
> 6) Finding time for implementation
Always a problem.
> >Finally, do you know of any other way I might be able to get better
> >control of the Archiving/Indexing process and presentation if it's
> >not possible with you?
>
> The best way to have complete control is to run things yourself. You
> might want to try scrounging around even harder for someone with a
> server who is willing to let you have free reign. (Sorry, I don't have
> any specific recommendations.)
Multi-admin support does get into support issues as noted. Such
a feature requires mail-archive to go beyond the volunteer efforts
of a single person.
--ewh
