Tom Neff <tneff@grassyhill.net> writes:
> FWIW I disagree with Russ - the Web is really better at this stuff in
> terms of (a) scaling up to large, long-lived lists, (b) sophisticated
> searching (even, or especially, via Google) and (c) flexibility of human
> interface. And I say this as an avid IMAP user.
I'll believe that when I see an archive interface that I can stand to use
more than occasionally with a great deal of pain. I'm still looking.
Google doesn't cut it either (although Google Groups is certainly better
than 99% of the mailing list archives out there).
> The meta-lesson, if you will, is that you should store your list
> archives in the most presentation-independent format possible, so as to
> preserve your options when you change your mind every five years, or
> when archive browsing technology leaps. Don't cook messages permanently
> into HTML pages.
Saving the archives as mbox files or as separate files per message is
probably the best, as the e-mail format is more stable than most anything
else.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
