From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
cc: Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@postgrespro.ru>,
        PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: annoying links
In-reply-to: 
 <CABUevEyMjaA3SS2o+kahd+KDaFi0ttC0f6kxLk2MTwRiu46U6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAF4Au4z1mcuO0EM8D5RaWZT_zHCKd2saRk_Tiuk+dBcyrFoPPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABUevEwB1rMSv-_v9g9dg9b79YUC0LZ8i4-yBE-iRJbvaNKOKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <19279.1554647648@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CABUevEyMjaA3SS2o+kahd+KDaFi0ttC0f6kxLk2MTwRiu46U6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
	message dated "Sun, 07 Apr 2019 17:01:16 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <27264.1554650212.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2019 11:16:52 -0400
Message-ID: <27265.1554650212@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 4:34 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> A lot of the archives' links have been like that for a long time.
>> Some don't get the let's-obscure-this-email-address treatment,
>> but I have no idea what the difference is.

> That's interesting. Do you have an example of one that doesn't get broke=
n?

Ones where @ has been converted to %40 seem to work fine,
as for example in

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190331224233.GC891537%40rfd.leadbo=
at.com

but I've also seen it work when that wasn't done, as for example
the second message-id link in

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/271bc1a7-2b59-e3f3-56b7-c8bc5456424a=
%402ndquadrant.com

So no, I don't know why some of the ones where the final component
does look like it could be an email address get the obscuring
treatment.

			regards, tom lane