Re: Post-2018 messages in archives

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:39:18AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Unfortunately we don't keep the ingest time separately. But for the future,
>>> doing so would probably be a good idea, for other reasons as well.

> Works for me. Pondering it more, the timestamp that matters most for archive
> purposes is the timestamp at which list subscribers started to receive their
> copies of the message. Based on that, I'm thinking we should ignore the Date
> header and always use the timestamp from a particular "Received ... by
> HOSTNAME.postgresql.org" header. Before settling on that, I'd want to check
> how many messages change timestamp by more than ~100s, and I'd want to spot
> check a few messages to see whether the change looks like an improvement.

Another point worth considering here is moderation queue delays, which
are not infrequently measured in days :-(. I am not quite sure whether
it'd be better to tag a moderation-delayed message with the timestamp
when it entered the queue or the time when it exited. But either one
would be better than believing the Date: header.

regards, tom lane