From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/35038
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Jason R. Mastaler" <jason@mastaler.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: `user-mail-address' for message-ids
Date: 27 Feb 2001 14:47:46 -0700
Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu
Message-ID: <puivgpvlrwd.fsf@rp17.acl.lanl.gov>
References: <20010223133030.B14991@mastaler.com>
	<m3elwpi07k.fsf@multivac.student.cwru.edu>
	<puid7c9c9y7.fsf@mastaler.com>
	<m31ysphvj5.fsf@multivac.student.cwru.edu>
	<pui4rxlc8ij.fsf@mastaler.com>
	<vafhf1knv10.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<ilupug8qc1j.fsf@barbar.josefsson.org>
	<puipug4nihc.fsf@cyan.acl.lanl.gov> <rjlmqsovy4.fsf@ssv2.dina.kvl.dk>
	<puiy9usm27v.fsf@cyan.acl.lanl.gov>
	<vafy9usng0u.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<pui8zmrn722.fsf@rp17.acl.lanl.gov> <m3bsrn951o.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035170847 874 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:27:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:27:27 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu>
Original-Received: from lisa.math.uh.edu (lisa.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.49])
	by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F2CD049D
	for <jason@mastaler.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:49:21 -0500 (EST)
Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5])
	by lisa.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAB24135;
	Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:48:15 -0600 (CST)
Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:47:34 -0600 (CST)
Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged))
	by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15357
	for <ding@hpc.uh.edu>; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:47:22 -0600 (CST)
Original-Received: from acl.lanl.gov (acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.1])
	by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07AF8D049D
	for <ding@gnus.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:47:49 -0500 (EST)
Original-Received: from rp17.acl.lanl.gov (root@rp17.acl.lanl.gov [128.165.146.17]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA9356256; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:47:46 -0700 (MST)
Original-Received: (from jasonrm@localhost)
	by rp17.acl.lanl.gov (8.9.3/8.8.8) id OAA01042;
	Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:47:46 -0700
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
Mail-Copies-To: never
In-Reply-To: prj@po.cwru.edu's message of "27 Feb 2001 16:41:49 -0500"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
Precedence: list
X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7
Original-Lines: 16
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35038
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35038

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> They'll be the same: user foo uses algorithm 1, which spits out
> "X"+username ("Xfoo"), along with other stuff.  User Xfoo uses
> algorithm 2, which spits out username ("Xfoo"), along with other
> stuff, which happens to be the same other stuff.  Both algorithms,
> with their respective inputs, produce the same output.
> 
> We can ensure that the LHS would be unique if everyone used the same
> algorithm, but we can't make everyone use the same algorithm.

I'm not following this argument.  We are talking about gnus users here
which using the same software will be using the same algorithm for
message-id generation.  Therefore gnus users foo and Xfoo won't be
producing the same output.