>>>>> "DW" == Dave Wolfe <email@example.com> writes:
DW> I'll side w/ SRE on this one. I _must_ have ability to make changes to
DW> the archives.
It seems you're siding with me as well, because I never said that the
intent was to prevent you from making changes to the archives. But you
can't just do anything to them and expect the system to just figure this
DW> If the message numbers need to be persistent, OK I guess, but then they
DW> must be an abstraction and not literally ordinal message positions of
DW> the particular archive file.
The message numbers are not literally ordinal positions. (They are,
coincidentally, at the moment because we don't yet support deletion.) We
just have to keep track of the message numbers of deleted messages. Easy,
and solves all of the problems, as long as it's Mj2 that's deleting the
message. If you decide to fire up vi and manually edit stuff then you
can't expect the system to figure out what you did without giving it any
Hmmm. Michael, do archived messages get the message number embedded in
them? This could be used as a non-foolproof way of detecting that someone
has screwed with the archives. But still, anyone who expects to just be
able to poke with things is expecting too much.