On 26/01/2026 2:42 pm, David wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 at 03:18, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 26/01/2026 5:01 am, David wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 at 18:01, D. R. Evans wrote:
(see my e-mail
<[email protected]> in another
sub-thread),
If you want to reference other list messages, can you please do that by
providing links into the list archive which can be found at for
example: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2026/01/threads.html
David, if you wish to open that message in a browser then you may easily
do it:
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/?m=MESSAGE_ID
Notice "?m=", it is important, "a bit broken" below is related to it.
Actually every message has a bit broken header with a link to the list
archive, see List-Archive.
Having Message-ID, it is more convenient to open that message inside
mailer or in another web mailing list archive. Instead, your are
suggesting to use a link that is local to the lists.debian.org web site.
Thanks for using a separate thread to discuss this.
It is not a separate thread, it is Gmail web UI workaround added since
users tend to use "reply" even starting unrelated discussion. This
message may start another Gmail conversation (but not traditional
thread) since Thunderbird follows "(was: ...)" convention.
Here's an example link that I wrote recently in another message:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2026/01/msg00411.html
I believe, both links: Message-ID and HTTPS with internal message
number, have some disadvantages. On the other hand, I consider both are
acceptable. What I did not like, is that you requested to use another
style of links.
If I click on that link, the Message-ID you prefer is provided in
line 7 of the served page. So the Message-ID is available there for anyone
who needs it.
I am aware of it, but it works only if HTTP server with mail archive is
available. I have seen enough broken links on the web. If a mail list
archive moved to other site or removed completely then "msg00411" is not
a helpful identifier. It can not be used for obtaining the same message
from another archive. I admit, Message-ID's usually have no hints
concerning date and mailing list name. Actually I prefer redundancy and
references with sender, destination, and timestamp:
David to debian-user. Re: Referencing mail messages (was: Use
grub-rescue on a non-bootable RAID-formatted drive) Mon, 26 Jan 2026
07:42:56 +0000.
<mid:CAMPXz=q3itpmvy2nz8n0j5epusnuo0mxy2icyhj3qk9o1ra...@mail.gmail.com>
(Or https://...)
So generic search may be used to obtain the message. I am realizing that
almost nobody will use detailed links.
Here are the reasons why I am inclined to continue preferring the direct
link to the archive:
1) It is human-readable, so it is clear and safe to click on.
2) Its format and use is consistent with links to other web sources.
I believe,
<https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/?m=CAMPXz=q3itpmvy2nz8n0j5epusnuo0mxy2icyhj3qk9o1ra...@mail.gmail.com>
is not really worse
3) It does not require special knowledge for any (eg newbie) reader to find
the information, because everyone knows how to follow https links.
4) It works for readers who are not using a dedicated mail client.
5) It works for readers who are reading the archive in a web browser.
I agree that some kind of trick (e.g. browser extension, boookmark with
search substitution) is necessary if Message-ID links are actively used.
5) Sometimes the Message-ID search of the Debian mail archives fails to
find messages, so I prefer to use a method that seems to always work.
See "?m=" above. Some effort is required to fix HTTP server
configuration or the script parsing URL (or both) and smartlist (to use
Archived-At and safer URL). My knowledge of Perl is not enough to be
confident that changes I might suggest will be safe from security point
of view.
etiquette, while using the Gmail web interface. For example, I precompose
all my messages using Vim to properly reflow and clean up quoted text.
Thanks for doing it. I find Gmail web UI inconvenient for plain text
messages. Thunderbird has idiosyncrasy, but its editor is acceptable for
me. Whether flowed format or hard line breaks is preferred, likely
depends of mailers used by readers.
On 26/01/2026 12:17 pm, David Wright wrote:
Some Message-ID references are very long, anything up to about
160 characters, and are not easy to check when cut and pasted
into a browser due to their random nature.
It is positive feedback loop. Nobody cares that some soft generates
excessively long or peculiar Message-ID's since they are rarely used in
links. More active usage of Message-ID will create some pressure to
developers.
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/Y/+tJdQluFDMC4Ci@use
"+" is more tricky, it is not enough to just insert "?m=". In my
opinion, mailers should use URL- and shell-safe Message-ID's even if the
price is a bit longer identifiers. I anticipate that some developers may
be upset because they follow RFC's, but I prefer to avoid exercising if
all Message-ID handlers are written in safe way.
David Wright, I have noticed that you sometimes skips explicit
"https://"; prefix. At least Thunderbird does not make links active ones.
I do not see a point in insisting on HTTPS link when Message-ID is
provided. Any variant is better than mentioning messages without any
identifier. Everybody has its own preferences concerning style of linking.
P.S. I did not respond immediately since primary topic of this thread
was active.
