Re: new ietf mail archive? permanent urls?

Henrik Levkowetz <> Mon, 21 March 2016 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3774212D670 for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 03:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T_mgdQsWww3d for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 03:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7BE012D553 for <>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 03:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:57291 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <>) id 1ahwgL-0000mZ-L1; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 03:03:30 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:03:22 +0100
From: Henrik Levkowetz <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:, IETF Discussion <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DNHlfQiVd6wWHCMQQ7DRgE4x6OnXttkO7"
Subject: Re: new ietf mail archive? permanent urls?
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:03:32 -0000

Hi Lloyd,

On 2016-03-20 12:42, wrote:
> okay, I've finally belatedly noticed the new ietf mail archive.
> (because I have a life these days.)
> Is e.g.
> 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).