I find it varies. For some types of search Mhonarch is definitely better. If I have a vague idea about when a thread occurred and a vague idea about the subject header, paging through Mhonarch to find the thread works much better. And then following the thread itself is pretty natural in Mhonarch. Also, if you send someone the link they can follow the thread too. Here's a challenge. Follow the recent threads on 6man about RFC4291bis. It's very easy at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/threads.html It's not at all easy with the new tool. In fact I found two issues while trying to do so: 1. I simply can't see how I'm supposed to restrict the search to the subject header. All searches appear to be on header+body. Maybe I'm missing something? 2. I noticed that a whole thread whose subject header is "RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-00.txt>" displays in the search results as just plain "RE: ", which seems to be bug. So if I was doing that search in real life, I would definitely use Mhonarch. Regards Brian Carpenter On 20/07/2017 06:48, Samita Chakrabarti wrote: > +1. > > I find MHonarc is much easier interface to use and better viewing > experience. > > Wish mailarchive.ietf had a similar user interface. Currently, I use > MHonarc for this reason. > > -Samita > > On Jul 19, 2017 5:04 AM, "Nick Hilliard" <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. >> >