Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com> wrote:
> [ Walt Haas writes: ]
> >
> > But resend is the most gawdawful mess of hacks and undocumented
> > spaghetti code I've seen in a while, no offense intended, I'm sure
> > there's a good reason for it to be that way.
>
> No you're not (sure, that is). :-)
Mea culpa, I'm not (sure, that is). :-)
> What all are you trying to do? It
> would seem fairly simple, instead of composing a message to the
> moderator, just drop the rejected message in the bit bucket and exit.
I'm trying to clean up the submitter address and return an informative
message, on the theory that screwups are more common than malice. For
example, let's say that a "helpful" sysadmin changed my From: address
for me. Suddenly my mail to a list with "restrict_post = listname"
doesn't get thru. If Majordomo blackholes my email it takes me a lot
of hassle and aggravation to track the problem and fix it. A helpful
diagnostic message would be a great boon. Of course, the From:
address on your basic GET RICH QUICK!! spam would just bounce, but
I'm betting that would be a less common source of the problem.
> > Is there any point in my trying to clean up the mess, possibly in
> > hopes of abstracting what we know so far about intake of mailing list
> > messages, so that we can incorporate the result in 2? Or should I use
> > the meatax approach?
>
> I doubt it, since Jason seems to have a pretty good handle on what he's
> doing and took a different approach in Mj2. I'd worry that any massive
> changes, whether by cleanup or meat axe, will introduce more problems
> than they'd fix at this stage.
Well 2.0 seems to be a little high-centered at the moment. It hasn't
got far enough to attract the kind of user base that will add development
labor to it, but its design is different enough (that's a compliment, not
an objection) from 1.94.4 that it isn't very easy to just merge the pieces.
I'd like to contribute in some way that will move 2.0 forward while
solving my client's problem in a way that leads to my earning enough
money to buy groceries. Right now I'm groping for some solution that will
help with both issues.
On the subject of documentation, which I also do: the biggest issue is
getting somebody to read it. After this list showed little to zero
enthusiasm for my 1.94.4 documentation I posted the URL to the
majordomo-users list, and got two (count `em, 2) responses. Wow!!
But just for the sake of argument, suppose that I spent some time
reading the code for 2.0 and compiled a bunch of notes about the pieces
and how they fit together and stuff like that, in what form might any
hypothetical reader want the documentation? I've been turning out dual
PostScript/HTML documents but that imposes certain constraints ...
sometimes I wonder if it's worth the trouble. Opinions?
-- Walt
-------
"If this is comfortable for you, you aren't pushing yourself hard enough."
- Lonnie Burton
"If you don't like those ideas, I got others." - Marshall McLuhan
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
