Re: [PATCH] private message id

["Łukasz Stelmach" <lukasz.stelmach@iem.pw.edu.pl>]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Łukasz Stelmach <lukasz.stelmach@iem.pw.edu.pl> writes:
>
>> This is an option. However, there is the whole superseding code which
>> looks like it should be there. So copying a function just to redefine
>> two lines in it looks weird, doesn't it?
>
> It's really the message-unique-id and/or message-make-fqdn that need
> redefinition, isn't it?

Not exactly. Let me explain it step by step (and think aloud). By
default you get:

<87vd3dw1fh.fsf@some.host.fqdn>

If you redefine message-unique-id you still get the same fqdn on every
message you send regardless of the account (identity) you use. This
makes them easy to associate. Conclusion message-unique-id is OK as it
is let's change message-make-fqdn. Lets make message-make-fqdn return
sender's address

<87tyixw1au.fsf@lukasz.stelmach@iem.pw.edu.pl>

It is invalid Message-ID because it comprises two `@' characters. The
first `@' comes from message-make-message-id so either we redefine this
function or substitute the second `@' with a character valid for a
domain name. 

<87r5e1w15q.fsf@lukasz.stelmach-iem.pw.edu.pl>

Now message-make-fqdn returns lukasz.stelmach-iem.pw.edu.pl which
preserves ID's uniqueness. And it is a good Message-ID. In fact you in
the latter case it's enough to set message-user-fqdn (but a function
attached somewhere around message-send-hook is required to set it
according to the From header, which in fact is equivalent work to
redefinition of message-make-fqdn). However, in this particular case
everything seems to work fine, it will only as long as no one expects it
to return what its name means.

That's my rationale for the patch.

-- 
Miłego dnia,
Łukasz Stelmach