In that case, so much the better. I have the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that server disk space is an abundant commodity, and that many of the people here have it at their disposal. The question would be then how many of them can install htDig in their server accounts and have it support X number of searches per day. I'm talking basically about moving both the old theads and the search funcionality for them to other machines.

However, without a dynamic link to the user table, these will be searchable by all and sundry.

I suspect there'll be a lot of support for a dynamic link. We're going to some lengths to keep posting pages off Google and the like already (aren't we?), and archives should really stay private. (She says, thinking back on some of the stuff she-- and others-- say here.)

I suspect there'll be a lot of support for a dynamic link.

Which means they'll have to be stored here.

Now, we can keep the pages off Google et al., but as things stand (or will stand), one needs to be a registered user here to search. Not so if we move the pages to another server.

However, without a dynamic link to the user table, these will be searchable by all and sundry.

Oh, they are not supposed to be searched by non-subscribers. I had forgotten about that.

Hrm. In that case, export the user table daily from MySQL to an .htaccess file or something like that, and copy it to wherever the old threads will be.

Sorry if all of this seems far-fetched or too Unix-specific. I'm at work and procastinating (thinking about anything work-related except work itself).

In that case, export the user table daily from MySQL to an .htaccess file or something like that, and copy it to wherever the old threads will be.

• Not sure about the mechanics of cross-site automation, with security and stuff
• I don't think we use the same authentication mechanisms as .htaccess, so there'd be password issues
• We don't need to make the archives inaccessible to unregistered users (they currently can see them), but I was just pointing out usability divergences from the current setup

.htaccess uses the standard Unix crypt function to encrypt its passwords. But anyway, it was just an example of how things could be done wrt limiting access to the archives.

.htaccess uses the standard Unix crypt function to encrypt its passwords.

Is that MD5? Because that's how ours are stored.

Nope, they are different functions. And in that case, I'm afraid that this option isn't feasible, with MD5 being one-way and all that...

Let me check if there's any way to make .htaccess use MD5 passwords, though...

Edit: oh wait, there *is*. .htaccess uses by default crypt() passwords, but you can configure it to use MD5 too.

Anyway, these are all implementation details, and I'm sure something can be worked out in the end. The first decision to make, if I understand correctly, is still at a higher level...

How would the user table stay updated? Every time a new closed thread was ported, an update to the archives user table would be required.

Well, yeah. Basically. That would be how.

Update it when the archive is updated.

Edit: probably by using the most-up-to-date version at the time of archiving.

I'm in voting mode:

I say option 1. It is what I'm used to so it might just be a familiarity thing.