Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:58:00 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Archives policy
Message-ID: <20090416165800.GY7709@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <16454.1239890476@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200904161454.n3GEsxm27869@momjian.us>
	<937d27e10904160808w21a2ebbcs57136807df000680@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090416151427.GW7709@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<937d27e10904160827r19c50f2fg79a552fdaae96836@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090416135324.U84471@hub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090416135324.U84471@hub.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> Yeah, thanks for raising that! If we catch inappropriate messages 
>> almost immediately, it should just be a case of stopping mhonarc from 
>> running and deleting the messages from the mbox file. If they've been 
>> there are while (and renumbering messages will be a problem)
>
> Isn't that why Alvaro(?) went through all that work getting it so that we 
> could reference messages by MessageID?  To remove the worry concerning  
> renumbering?

Well, there's still a lot of people using the number scheme, so I don't
think we can just ignore the renumbering issue.  However, I think it's
reasonable to say that we can just ignore it for very recent messages
(and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic
messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is
going to be taken pretty hastily).

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support