> On 19 Jul 2017, at 21:54, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. A good summary, and my strong preference also. Tim > > 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. >>> >> >