[ Brock Rozen writes: ]
> > > Dave, is it even possible to have digests without digest "archives"? Are
> > > we forcing that onto people?
[ response deleted ]
> Well, I have digests running without the archive2.pl program -- yet I am
> *required* to have a digest .archive directory.
> Upon my examination of the digest program, it seems that the file stored
> there is the file that is sent out to the subscription list. It's compiled
> from the digest work directory and then stored there, then sent.
> I guess the original programmers decided, heck, if it's already there, why
> erase it?!
I misunderstood your original question. Yes, it would appear that when
the -C option is used to configure digest, the digest is saved in the
$filedir/$list$filedir_suffix directory. This actually seems quite
logical in one sense because it archives each digest where it can be
retrieved with 'get', as long as one considers the list-digest list
to not really exist. Symlinking list-digest.archive to list.archive
then makes both the list and digest 'get' behave the same way. Using
archive2.pl when digest is used in this mode just archives the same
messages in two different ways.
This is what I was alluding to (the list and list digest .config files
being intertwined). When -C is used, -l is required, which couples a
list to its digest in unexpected ways. Values are used from the *list*
.config file for collecting and compiling the digest, rather than the
more intuitive *list-digest* .config file. Or maybe not. I'm going back
to my policy of no comments on digests. They make my stomach hurt.