On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:18 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/24/21 8:42 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >> On 24 May 2021, at 11:47, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >>> On 2021-May-19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It's just a reference after all. So someone supplies a reference to an
> >>>> email on an out of the way list. What's the evil that will occur? Not
> >>>> much really AFAICT.
> >> Well, if you include all lists, the ability for you to findi things by
> >> the "most recent posts" or by searching for anything other than a
> >> unique message id will likely become less useful.
> > Thats a good case for restricting this to the smaller set of lists which will
> > cover most submissions anyways. With a smaller set we could make the UX still
> > work without presenting an incredibly long list.
> >
> > Or, the most recent emails dropdown only cover a set of common lists but
> > a search will scan all lists?
> >
> >> As long as you only ever search by message-id it won't make a difference.
> > Without any supporting evidence to back it up, my gut feeling tells me the most
> > recent mails list is a good/simple way to lower the bar for submissions.
> >
>
> Maybe. I only ever do this by using an exact message-id, since that's
> what the web form specifically asks for :-)
The webform lets you either do a free text search, or pick from a
list, or enter a message-id, no?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
