Re: `user-mail-address' for message-ids

[Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)]

On 27 Feb 2001, Jason R. Mastaler wrote:

> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> 
>> > Right.  So it still seems that the first part of the Message-ID
>> > (before @) should be enough to guarantee uniqueness if done
>> > correctly.  Perhaps if it was a combination of random time, and
>> > an aggregate of username and numeric userid, then it would not
>> > matter if `user-mail-address' was used for the second part of the
>> > ID.  Right?
>> 
>> The standard says that the rhs should uniquely identify the host,
>> and the lhs should uniquely identify the messages from that host.
>> I suggest to stick with the standard.  This means to NOT use a rhs
>> like "hotmail.com".
> 
> So in other words, my above assertion is correct, and you now resist
> solely because of this "standard"?

I didn't try to think about whether it's correct.  But using the user
name or the numeric user id is not going to help much with the many
Linux machines installed with the default settings.  Most probably,
the user name will be "example_user" (or somesuch) and the uid will be
100 (or 101?) -- go look at a Redhat system.

Also, note that normal intuitions about when message ids will be
unique might not take into account the HUGE volume of messages
traversing the Usenet every day.  I wonder how many messages there
are, per second, on an average day?

Then you can see that a dupe in a few million seconds is quite
probable.  A year is 31,536,000 seconds, give or take.  See?

> I question whether this is really a standard because of how many
> other MUAs use the user's defined e-mail address for the rhs of the
> message-id.  Mozilla and Mutt immediately come to mind.  I'm sure
> there are others as well.  The qmail MTA also allows users to freely
> masquerade the hostname of their message-ids to whatever they want.

Ah, right.  Others violate the standard, so let's do it, too.  Right.
Way to go.  Argh!

kai
-- 
Be indiscrete.  Do it continuously.