without meaning to sound like a complete luddite (and top-posting for extra effect), what Michael has written is exactly how I feel about both systems, and I would be very unhappy to see mhonarc go. Nick Michael Richardson wrote: > Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > found. > > 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. >