> -- teeny snip--
>
> (There's anther incentive to keep a single message-id, which
> hasn't been mentioned yet. If a followup message makes reference
> to a previous message -- either in the In-Reply-To: or References:
> headers, or in somewhere in the body of the message -- it's of
> course natural to use the message-id. But no existing mailer
> software is ever going to construct an In-Reply-To: line based
> on Lyris's new X-Message-Id: header, which we can of course
> immediately tell is nonstandard by the leading X-. Take a look
> back at the In-Reply-To: headers for the messages to this list
> since the software changeover -- every one of them that mentions
> a message-id is meaningless to all but one of the members on the
> list.)
>
> --minor snip--
Interestingly enough, I've confirmed that there is a method to the
madness. The message-id for a given message, different for each member
of the list, will nevertheless bear an identical prefix. Going out on a
limb, I'm assuming that the "1012" is a number unique to each list, and
the number following the dash unique to each message. Nice for
archiving, I'm sure.
It is, however, a clear RFC violation. And something I feel compelled
to reiterate, given Mr. Baer's latest response about the problem, is
that ANY tampering with Message-ID's simply can't be tolerated. It's
just that simple. YOU CAN'T DO IT. I think that Mr. Summit (in message
#240) effectively addressed how previously given reasons for changing
the message-id don't apply here, so I won't recount them. If the
possible archival application that changing the message-id yields is
also a compelling reason to violate the RFCs, I'd propose a more or less
simple software tweak:
Proper Message-ID's are changed to X-Message-Id in the header after the
change; why not just switch the process? Keep the real ID the same, and
add the proprietary Lyris ID into the header as "X-Message-Id", or
better yet, "X-Lyris-ID"?
Cheers,
K.
The author apologizes for proliferating an off-topic thread, but aren't
you used to it by now? This list has a lot of very net-savvy people,
and I think it's always good when a lot of savvy people come together on
topics such as this. This is one of those lists that can be really
quiet for a long time, then just explode in commentary and exchange.
Topic-drift has been a studied phenomenon for years. It's not a bad
thing; we're the ones doing it! :)
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved