Re: [Zope] Re: full-text retrieval app
Stefan Guericke wrote:
You can build an application for full-text retrieval for external files with TextIndexNG and ExternalFile.
what do u think of writing his own application which stores different content type depending on the file type. id3 tag for mp3s, <title> and <bod>...</body> for html etc. implementing the indexing procedure in c++. the results could be saved in several tables in a mysql database. because the querys would be not too complicated the speed of the querys might be acceptable.
searching the index could be done by executing ZSQL methods.
what do u think about this idea?
Please keep the discussion on the list... Your idea sounds for me like: Why do you want to use Zope if you want to invent the wheel on your own? ZCatalog/TextIndexNG are well tested and do their job very well... There's no need to invent your own c++-indexer, if you do it the "zopish" way. Maybe you should have a look at MNOGoSearch and something like this non-zope-stuff for full-text-retrieval out there... -mj
--On Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2003 18:37 +0100 Maik Jablonski <maik.jablonski@uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
Stefan Guericke wrote:
You can build an application for full-text retrieval for external files with TextIndexNG and ExternalFile.
what do u think of writing his own application which stores different content type depending on the file type. id3 tag for mp3s, <title> and <bod>...</body> for html etc. implementing the indexing procedure in c++. the results could be saved in several tables in a mysql database. because the querys would be not too complicated the speed of the querys might be acceptable.
I agree with Maik. There are already enough systems outside that could be plugged with ZOpe by writing the corresponding Python binding. But it does not make sense to write a complete new indexer architecture. That's a pure waste of men power. Instead feel free to contribute and provide an existing project. -aj --------------------------------------------------------------------- - Andreas Jung http://www.andreas-jung.com - - EMail: andreas at andreas-jung.com - - "Life is too short to (re)write parsers" - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 12:37 PM, Maik Jablonski wrote:
Please keep the discussion on the list...
To the list admins - why should we constantly have to deal with this? Please change the default to "Reply to List", no matter what the folks at Mailman think. It makes no sense for the default to be the action you *don't* want. ___/ / __/ / ____/ Ed Leafe http://leafe.com/ http://opentech.leafe.com
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 03:38:25PM -0500, Ed Leafe wrote:
To the list admins - why should we constantly have to deal with this? Please change the default to "Reply to List", no matter what the folks at Mailman think. It makes no sense for the default to be the action you *don't* want.
Except where the default is what others *do* want. It is a question of gaining experience with your mail program and lists in general, whatever the default is anyway. I personally prefer the current setup, and I know others do too. Besides, if I change the default now, it'd confuse all the veteran posters too. I see no compelling reason yet to make a change at the moment. -- Martijn Pieters | Software Engineer mailto:mj@zope.com | Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com/ | Creators of Zope http://www.zope.org/ ---------------------------------------------
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 10:34 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
To the list admins - why should we constantly have to deal with this? Please change the default to "Reply to List", no matter what the folks at Mailman think. It makes no sense for the default to be the action you *don't* want.
Except where the default is what others *do* want. It is a question of gaining experience with your mail program and lists in general, whatever the default is anyway.
If someone posts a question, how do you know if they have received an answer yet? I would say that for questions I've posted, well over half of the replies were off-list. Many of those times, someone had already answered me; the second poster could have saved their time if they knew that an answer was already given. And on a design point, if I ever developed an application and gave it defaults that required my users to "gain experience" in order to learn not to use the defaults, I would not be in business long. I also host lists for thousands of users, with "reply to list" as the default, and have not run into any problems as a result.
I personally prefer the current setup, and I know others do too. Besides, if I change the default now, it'd confuse all the veteran posters too. I see no compelling reason yet to make a change at the moment.
I don't see why "veterans" would have any more trouble adapting to such a change than newbies would have adapting to the current system. And why do you prefer to receive two copies of every reply to any post you make? ___/ / __/ / ____/ Ed Leafe http://leafe.com/ http://opentech.leafe.com
Ed Leafe wrote If someone posts a question, how do you know if they have received an answer yet? I would say that for questions I've posted, well over half of the replies were off-list. Many of those times, someone had already answered me; the second poster could have saved their time if they knew that an answer was already given.
Look, the simple answer to this is that all decent mail reading software gives you the choice to either reply directly to the poster, or to the poster and the list, or to the list. Who are you to say "no, you must reply to the list", and to make the mailing list software mangle headers in an attempt to make this happen? Anthony. -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 08:45 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Look, the simple answer to this is that all decent mail reading software gives you the choice to either reply directly to the poster, or to the poster and the list, or to the list. Who are you to say "no, you must reply to the list", and to make the mailing list software mangle headers in an attempt to make this happen?
OK, if it's that easy, why did you "choose" to send two copies of your message to me? Please explain why that makes sense. I also think that "mangle headers" is an interesting choice of words. Every server that processes mail alters the headers for different reasons. Adding a "Reply-To" header is no more "mangling" than adding an "Errors-To" header. Why are you not objecting to that sort of "header mangling" by this list? Probably because "Errors-To" supplies additional information that helps the list function better. "Reply-To" is no different. Also, what percentage of the time is replying off-list appropriate? IMO, lists serve to support others by sharing knowledge. Replying off-list (the default) shares knowledge with one person; replying to the list shares it with all list members, and could also save someone the time of replying to a question that had already been answered. ___/ / __/ / ____/ Ed Leafe http://leafe.com/ http://opentech.leafe.com
Ed Leafe wrote OK, if it's that easy, why did you "choose" to send two copies of your message to me? Please explain why that makes sense.
Learn to use procmail: FORMAIL=/usr/bin/formail # Weed out duplicates (with dup-ed msgid's) # :0 Wh : msgid.lock | $FORMAIL -D 32768 msgid.cache Stuff gets posted between lists all the time - is there some bad magic that should be done to save you getting dupes? As for sending stuff to the author, and to the list - some lists are slooooow to process email (lots of users, &c). A courtesy cc to the user is polite.
I also think that "mangle headers" is an interesting choice of words. Every server that processes mail alters the headers for different reasons. Adding a "Reply-To" header is no more "mangling" than adding an "Errors-To" header. Why are you not objecting to that sort of "header mangling" by this list? Probably because "Errors-To" supplies additional information that helps the list function better. "Reply-To" is no different.
Because it's not just "adding a Reply-To". It's replacing one that's already there, and removing the previous one. If that was the only way to communicate your real email address (for whatever reason), then you're hosed. This subject comes up about once every 12 months on this list, that's all. It's never needed changing so far - and the arguments given are not in the slightest bit compelling. And no, that the topic comes up occasionally is not an argument for it changing. There's what, a couple of thousand people on the list? How many are posting that they'd like it changed? 3 or 4?
Also, what percentage of the time is replying off-list appropriate? IMO, lists serve to support others by sharing knowledge. Replying off-list (the default) shares knowledge with one person; replying to the list shares it with all list members, and could also save someone the time of replying to a question that had already been answered.
Again, that's you trying to dictate, through software, how people use the list. If you'd prefer the list to run as a "please send all replies to the list", or "if you get off-list replies that solve your problem, please post a summary to the list" (the latter would be my preferred method of "solving" this non-problem), write up a small list FAQ, and ask for it to be sent out to new subscribers, and maybe re-post it every 6 weeks or so. Anthony. -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Ed Leafe wrote OK, if it's that easy, why did you "choose" to send two copies of your message to me? Please explain why that makes sense.
Learn to use procmail: FORMAIL=/usr/bin/formail # Weed out duplicates (with dup-ed msgid's) # :0 Wh : msgid.lock | $FORMAIL -D 32768 msgid.cache
Oh, yes, that's much better than having you simply reply to the list. And I'm sure that my lists will be very popular when I tell everyone to get their mail admins to implement that. Especially those who use public mail servers, or web-based systems, or (gasp!) Windows-based systems.
Because it's not just "adding a Reply-To". It's replacing one that's already there, and removing the previous one. If that was the only way to communicate your real email address (for whatever reason), then you're hosed.
Really? Why should changing the "Reply-to" delete the "From" header? Every message I receive on lists that are set to reply to the list contain perfectly good From headers. And even if somehow the From header got magically excised, a reply to the list will still reach the original sender, unless, of course, they unsubscribe right after sending that post. And replacing the Reply-to makes perfect sense. I'm not subscribing to you, I'm subscribing to the list. When I post, I post to the list. I'm a consultant, and I reserve individual help for clients. I make exceptions for support lists, since I learn a lot from them and feel it is only right to pay back to others in the same spirit. A post to a list not only helps the person who asked the question, but some other lurkers who might run into the same problem, as well as some future users who find the post in the archive. A reply sent to an individual helps just that person.
This subject comes up about once every 12 months on this list, that's all. It's never needed changing so far - and the arguments given are not in the slightest bit compelling. And no, that the topic comes up occasionally is not an argument for it changing. There's what, a couple of thousand people on the list? How many are posting that they'd like it changed? 3 or 4?
Howabout a few every week who ask people to keep replies on the list? They obviously are not happy with the default behavior. And I think it is pretty disingenuous to act as though the number of people who *don't* reply must somehow prefer the status quo. Typically, it's only a few loudmouths like us who do all the discussing. Most people, whatever their opinion, keep silent. I think a more objective survey would be to look at the number of similar support lists, and see how many of them are set up to reply to the list, and how many aren't. I'm currently subscribed to 11 technical support lists, and this is the only one that does not default to sending replies to the list. I am also amused that you find the concept of setting the default to the most frequently desired action to be "not in the slightest bit compelling". IMO, that's *all* that is needed to change things; it would take a tremendously persuasive argument showing some other benefit to change the default to the *less* used option. ___/ / __/ / ____/ Ed Leafe http://leafe.com/ http://opentech.leafe.com
On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 08:48, Ed Leafe wrote:
I think a more objective survey would be to look at the number of similar support lists, and see how many of them are set up to reply to the list, and how many aren't. I'm currently subscribed to 11 technical support lists, and this is the only one that does not default to sending replies to the list.
"But MOM, all the other kids do it!" "If they all jumped off a bridge into burning lava would you?" I'm on about three dozen lists, mostly technical (all but 5). All but two are like this one (and for some reason they get more spam than the others). If you want a reply-to, add it yourself. In fact, I managed a non-technical list that originated with your suggested setup, moved it to an arrangement like this one, and everyone is happier they say. And list membership went up. -- Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org> Linux in Boise Club
Ed, I'd give up, were I you. Though your arguments aren't groundless, the list reply-to policy is almost certainly not going to change unless you get a job with Zope Corporation and pick up the list admin duties, as there are some good counter arguments and inertia reigns. ;-) On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 10:48, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Ed Leafe wrote OK, if it's that easy, why did you "choose" to send two copies of your message to me? Please explain why that makes sense.
Learn to use procmail: FORMAIL=/usr/bin/formail # Weed out duplicates (with dup-ed msgid's) # :0 Wh : msgid.lock | $FORMAIL -D 32768 msgid.cache
Oh, yes, that's much better than having you simply reply to the list. And I'm sure that my lists will be very popular when I tell everyone to get their mail admins to implement that. Especially those who use public mail servers, or web-based systems, or (gasp!) Windows-based systems.
Because it's not just "adding a Reply-To". It's replacing one that's already there, and removing the previous one. If that was the only way to communicate your real email address (for whatever reason), then you're hosed.
Really? Why should changing the "Reply-to" delete the "From" header? Every message I receive on lists that are set to reply to the list contain perfectly good From headers. And even if somehow the From header got magically excised, a reply to the list will still reach the original sender, unless, of course, they unsubscribe right after sending that post.
And replacing the Reply-to makes perfect sense. I'm not subscribing to you, I'm subscribing to the list. When I post, I post to the list. I'm a consultant, and I reserve individual help for clients. I make exceptions for support lists, since I learn a lot from them and feel it is only right to pay back to others in the same spirit. A post to a list not only helps the person who asked the question, but some other lurkers who might run into the same problem, as well as some future users who find the post in the archive. A reply sent to an individual helps just that person.
This subject comes up about once every 12 months on this list, that's all. It's never needed changing so far - and the arguments given are not in the slightest bit compelling. And no, that the topic comes up occasionally is not an argument for it changing. There's what, a couple of thousand people on the list? How many are posting that they'd like it changed? 3 or 4?
Howabout a few every week who ask people to keep replies on the list? They obviously are not happy with the default behavior.
And I think it is pretty disingenuous to act as though the number of people who *don't* reply must somehow prefer the status quo. Typically, it's only a few loudmouths like us who do all the discussing. Most people, whatever their opinion, keep silent.
I think a more objective survey would be to look at the number of similar support lists, and see how many of them are set up to reply to the list, and how many aren't. I'm currently subscribed to 11 technical support lists, and this is the only one that does not default to sending replies to the list.
I am also amused that you find the concept of setting the default to the most frequently desired action to be "not in the slightest bit compelling". IMO, that's *all* that is needed to change things; it would take a tremendously persuasive argument showing some other benefit to change the default to the *less* used option.
___/ / __/ / ____/ Ed Leafe http://leafe.com/ http://opentech.leafe.com
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 11:25 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Ed, I'd give up, were I you. Though your arguments aren't groundless, the list reply-to policy is almost certainly not going to change unless you get a job with Zope Corporation and pick up the list admin duties, as there are some good counter arguments and inertia reigns. ;-)
Hey, I run my lists the way I think is best, but I'm always open to suggestions. I agree, I'm done with this thread. The dismissive nature of the replies I've received make it apparent that I'm wasting my time trying to appeal to rational discourse. I will get a chuckle, though, every time I see another "Please keep this on the list" request here. ___/ / __/ / ____/ Ed Leafe http://leafe.com/ http://opentech.leafe.com
Let's stop this discussion; it is not going anywhere. I am not changing the current setting. Whatever the default there will always be people who want it set the other way. It is a personal preference, and there is no scientifically provable optimum. (No, citing a statistic of hom many lists you know that do A or B doesn't count). -- Martijn Pieters | Software Engineer mailto:mj@zope.com | Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com/ | Creators of Zope http://www.zope.org/ ---------------------------------------------
On Friday 07 February 2003 3:48 pm, Ed Leafe wrote:
Really? Why should changing the "Reply-to" delete the "From" header? Every message I receive on lists that are set to reply to the list contain perfectly good From headers.
Until a few months ago, this would not have been true for any of my list posts. 'From' contained the email address that sent and received list traffic address. The only place to record my personal email address is in the Reply-To header. More widely, my current mailbox of this list contains 2112 messages, 189 of them contain a Reply-To header. It looks like I am not the only one to use this feature.
I am also amused that you find the concept of setting the default to the most frequently desired action to be "not in the slightest bit compelling".
Those in favor of the current list configuration have the same reason for amusement that your mail reader's "reply to all" button is not the one that you would click on by default. Shouldnt this the default action for replying to an email, even for someane who wasnt subscribed to any lists? -- Toby Dickenson http://www.geminidataloggers.com/people/tdickenson
Hi, maybe the last message in this thread...;) You can read & post to zope@zope.org via a newsserver. server: news.gmane.org listname: gmane.comp.web.zope.general (and much more zope-lists) Very comfortable and no problems with replies (all replies are directed to the newsserver)... just news! Cheers, Maik
also sprach Ed Leafe <ed@leafe.com> [2003.02.07.1648 +0100]:
And replacing the Reply-to makes perfect sense. I'm not subscribing to you, I'm subscribing to the list. When I post, I post to the list. I'm
Wrong: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Just get a proper mailer like mutt and configure it, and it can do everything you need. Is this thread really necessary? The list runs great as it is. If you want it differently, do it on the client side. Now please stop! -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck NOTE: The pgp.net keyservers and their mirrors are broken! Get my key here: http://people.debian.org/~madduck/gpg/330c4a75.asc sed -e '/^[when][coders]/!d' \ -e '/^...[discover].$/d' \ -e '/^..[real].[code]$/!d' \ /usr/share/dict/words
Anthony Baxter wrote:
Ed Leafe wrote
If someone posts a question, how do you know if they have received an answer yet? I would say that for questions I've posted, well over half of the replies were off-list. Many of those times, someone had already answered me; the second poster could have saved their time if they knew that an answer was already given.
Look, the simple answer to this is that all decent mail reading software gives you the choice to either reply directly to the poster, or to the poster and the list, or to the list.
How do you do that in mozilla? How does the MUA know which adress is the one from the list? As I see it, when replying to the mailing list I have two choices: "Reply", which in case of this email would be Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au>, or "Reply All", which adds Ed Leafe <ed@leafe.com>,Martijn Pieters <mj@zope.com>,zope@zope.org as CCs. Since I mostly just want to reply to the list, there's always manual work involved (which I'm doing now, in order to spare all the participants in this thread the extra mail), either deleting the wrong adress and manually typing zope@zope.org in the first case, or deleting all the adresses where I don't want to send the mail to, and changing the "CC:" from zope@zope.org to a "To:". So, just out of interest, am I missing some feature mozilla is offering me? cheers, oliver
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
Look, the simple answer to this is that all decent mail reading software gives you the choice to either reply directly to the poster, or to the poster and the list, or to the list. Who are you to say "no, you must reply to the list", and to make the mailing list software mangle headers in an attempt to make this happen?
Anthony.
Just to give my insignificant vote on this subject, I'd also prefer a Reply-To set to the list. That's how it's handled at the German DZUG-ML, and AFAIK there were no complaints. As for myself, I find that very comfortable... Martin
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:45:46AM +1100, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Ed Leafe wrote If someone posts a question, how do you know if they have received an answer yet? I would say that for questions I've posted, well over half of the replies were off-list. Many of those times, someone had already answered me; the second poster could have saved their time if they knew that an answer was already given.
Look, the simple answer to this is that all decent mail reading software gives you the choice to either reply directly to the poster, or to the poster and the list, or to the list.
What is "all decent mail reading software?" Apparently a number of zope@zope.org subscribers do not have such software. As long as we are playing the "who are you to say" game: Who are you to tell them they should change their mail reader? I'm on a number of lists that set Reply-to: and we simply do not have these discussions there. Zope lists are the only ones I'm on where I routinely get personal replies that were apparently intended for the list, and routinely see threads about this same topic over and over. +1 on Reply-to. I regard this as optimizing for the common case. :) -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
Paul Winkler wrote:
I'm on a number of lists that set Reply-to: and we simply do not have these discussions there. Zope lists are the only ones I'm on where I routinely get personal replies that were apparently intended for the list, and routinely see threads about this same topic over and over.
+1 on Reply-to. I regard this as optimizing for the common case. :)
Share your knowledge, spread the word... What's the "good" reason for replying only to the sender as default? If I want to write only to the sender (this happens once or twice a year, while I reply more often to the list...;)), I'll can cope with Copy&Paste his/her address. Replying to the list should be the default of a community. We are a community, aren't we? 1+ on Reply-To Cheers, Maik
participants (12)
-
Andreas Jung -
Anthony Baxter -
Bill Anderson -
Chris McDonough -
Ed Leafe -
Maik Jablonski -
Martijn Pieters -
martin f krafft -
Martin Gebert -
Oliver Bleutgen -
Paul Winkler -
Toby Dickenson