Thoughts on new overview

[Jeffrey M. Vinocur]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Jeffrey M Vinocur <jeff at litech.org> writes:
> 
> > The bytecounts of all of the articles have increased.
> 
> Hm.  Looking at the innd algorithm, it only counts \r\n as a single
> character for the byte count, so the line count will change by the number
> of lines in the message plus the number of header lines in the message.
> It also doesn't count the blank line between the headers and the body or
> the trailing .\r\n.
> 
> If you look at the headers of those articles too, does that count for the
> differences?  A quick check of those articles here seems to indicate that
> it does.

Oh.  *sigh*  Forgot that Lines: doesn't include headers.  So yeah, that 
makes sense.


> I think that what tdx-util does is more correct per the proposed RFC 977
> replacement than what innd is doing, although we still haven't hashed out
> what the byte count is actually supposed to be.  

Hmm.  I'm not sure that the overview data for an article should depend on 
what storage method is being used.  Which is what happens here, if 
rebuilding has occurred.  So regardless of which we use, we probably 
should be consistent, no?


> In any event, it just stats the file and uses the file size as the byte
> count; I did that because it was very simple and easy.

Ah.  That's true.  (Also probably much quicker in some cases, since you 
can stop scanning after the headers.)


-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org