On 2016-03-21 12:48, lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi Henrik, > > > I'd be good with list/YYYY/MM/DD/identifier-hash (per Wordpress > and in line with ISO8601 - none of that US MM/DD/YY funny stuff) > added into the urls, allowing mails to be retrieved either with > or without the date. (I presume the list id is optional as well > but > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/GKYUQNOssvg-JIsPfj90_YI5r9w > doesn't work as I might expect. No, the list is necessary. That decision was based on the same message sometimes going to multiple lists, and being archived as different items for the different lists. Yes, it would probably be possible to pull out the right message without the list, but that becomes a GUI headache when you find multiple matching items on different lists. > if > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/list/YYYY/MM/DD/ > > can return all emails to that list on that date, so much the better: That sounds nifty, yes. > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/list/YYYY/MM > gives the entire month, etc. Ack. > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/GKYUQNOssvg-JIsPfj90_YI5r9w > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GKYUQNOssvg-JIsPfj90_YI5r9w > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2016/03/20/GKYUQNOssvg-JIsPfj90_YI5r9w > > should return the same thing. Well, not the first one, as indicated above. That would mean guessing which one to present, for messages going to multiple lists, and explicit is better than implicit. But I like the date-in-url enhancements. Regards, Henrik > > thanks > Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx; IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, 21 March 2016, 21:03 > Subject: Re: new ietf mail archive? permanent urls? > > Hi Lloyd, > > On 2016-03-20 12:42, lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> okay, I've finally belatedly noticed the new ietf mail archive. >> (because I have a life these days.) >> >> Is e.g. >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GKYUQNOssvg-JIsPfj90_YI5r9w >> a permanent url? If not, should it be? > > Yes, it is. If you go and look at the message headers, you'll notice > that there's even an Archived-At: header field which has that permanent > url as its value. > > >> (It's occasionally >> useful to refer to emails directly, and cite text with urls, but >> that doesn't look like a good choice. I mean, no date in url? >> as a hint?) > > Good point. I think it would be rather easy to add a date hint to the > permanent URL, even if I think we'd still be using just the list and > hash to identify and pull out the message at the server end. The list > is already in the URL (in the case of the URL above, the list identifier > is the '/ietf/' part). > > > Regards, > > Henrik >