Robert Sparks <rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com> wrote:
> If you use the mhonarc archives heavily, and have not yet explored
> mailarchive.ietf.org, we encourage you to do so now, and report any
> difficulties you find. We recognize that the experience is different,
> but many of the RFC 7842 driven improvements focused on minimizing the
> transition pain.
I stopped using mailarchive and I almost exclusively use mhonarc
This is now easy since the dual links in the datatracker returned.
I was making up the correct links before, which was a pain.
I find the search-only interface to mailarchive annoying, and frankly slow.
While the thread support is better, it is still not anywhere as close
to MHonarc. When I find an email that I care about, and I ask for the
thread view, I get the thread for the entire list --- yes, with that
email opened, but the entire thread is there.
If there is a URL for that thread, I don't know it, and it is not easily
Frankly, I just feel stupid interacting with an active system when I
know a set of static files would satisfy my needs. No matter how fast the
active system can be made...
> We have successfully tested the code that will redirect all existing
> Mhonarc URLs into the mailarchive using the testlist.
neat. I understand the desire to get rid of mhonarc. I want mailarchive
to succeed, but it still feels really klunky to me.
> We are not going to make this transition immediately, but we do plan to
> make it more in the near future than the far future. Please help us
> identify any additional things we can do to minimize the disruption to
> your current workflow.
It would be cool if I could get an IMAP URL from mailarchive, as that
would let me jump from searching the archives for a relevant thread,
and right into writing a reply to it.
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on
Description: PGP signature