On 27 Feb 2001, Jason R. Mastaler wrote:
> Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> 
>> Ah, right.  Others violate the standard, so let's do it, too.
>> Right.  Way to go.  Argh!
> 
> But you haven't provided any proof of this "standard" of requiring
> the fqdn (and nothing else) of the running system to make up the
> rhs.

The standard does not require the fqdn.  The standard requires the rhs
to uniquely identify the host.

For dialup users, it might be convenient to use a rhs of the form
johnsmith.dialup.provider.net even though this `host name' is not a
valid name in the DNS.  But the host master of the provider.net domain
guarantees that a rhs of this form always uniquely identifies the
dialup host of the user `johnsmith'.

I hope you now understand the intent of the rhs of a message id.

I've been so vague in saying `the standard' because I knew it's a
pertinent RFC, but I forgot the number.  Thankfully, Paul said it's
RFC 1036.  Okay, now you can replace `the standard' with `RFC 1036' in
my previous posts... :-)

kai
-- 
Be indiscrete.  Do it continuously.