Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:42:10 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jfieber@indiana.edu Cc: terry@lambert.org, jmb@freefall.freebsd.org, langfod@dihelix.com, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Cool Web page interface to mail + search engine? Message-ID: <199703242142.OAA23592@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970324163351.2803K-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> from "John Fieber" at Mar 24, 97 04:45:28 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The benefit is in having a date-order stamp on message *that came > > into* majordomo. > > Ah, I see what you are getting at. I'm wondering if it would be > less hassle to simply use the Received: header that sendmail on > freefall attaches automatically: > > Received: (from root@localhost) > by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA19763 > for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:26:41 -0800 (PST) > > Stepping back a bit, for a variety of reasons, the headers need > to be massaged before indexing, and that would be a prime time to > extract the date from the Received line into a form more suitable > for indexing and retrieval. I already do that with the Date > field. OK... I was just thinking that the "massage" could be done by a local SMTP modification on freefall to put the stamp in the desired format, since it is a generated value anyway. This would save later header banging. But if you must do header banging anyway... then toy can go ahead and do it without worring about the issue. In any case, a known date stamp and Subject line should be enough to thread most data correctly. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703242142.OAA23592>