On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Alvaro
Herrera<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Greg Stark escribió:
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Alvaro
>> Herrera<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm mildly surprised to learn that this is unintentional... I use it
>> >> semi-regularly as a way of getting a shorter and more legible URL for
>> >> a message in the archives.
>> >
>> > I guess we could provide both. I vaguely remember someone asking how to
>> > get this URL some time ago.
>>
>> The message-id url is far more useful generally. It's guaranteed not
>> to change if we reprocess the mail archives -- even if we change mail
>> archiving systems altogether. More importantly it can be used to track
>> down the message even if the mail archives are down or inaccessible.
>>
>> The msg02010.php style url is what you get from our search engine or
>> index listing. I didn't think it was hard to get these urls. How are
>> you *not* getting one these urls in the first place?
>
> The number-based URLs are generated by Mhonarc internally. It doesn't
> generate the message-id-based URLs, and there's no way to make it emit
> them, so they are generated by an external program that broke when I
> changed the Mhonarc config some time ago after Tom complained that it
> broke URLs that ended in message-ids in the message body.
>
> This is all crap of course, which is why we want to replace Mhonarc with
> a database-backed system.
Database? You mean like Excel?
...Robert
