On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:03 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
> On 5/24/21 10:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > 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?
>
>
>
> Yes it does, but the text next to the field says "Specify thread msgid:".
Yes, I've always been confused by that form. I may have tried to
enter some free text once but AFAIR I always use the specific
message-id.
