> Hi,
> I'm sorry, but I do not understand it, what is it good for? The only
> change I see is that the message IDs would be unnecessary long and
> unreadable with your patch (though who does want to read it).
Well, if it looks to long I can switch to SHA-256 and halve the length.
> I do not
> see any issue with current approach of generating Message IDs in Camel,
> neither with RFC 5322 [1], which, I confess, I only briefly searched for
> message-id string.
It's not a matter for RFC, the fact is that I don't think is a good idea
to give away the evolution PID, the creation time and the mail count.
e.g.
You:
Message-ID: 01:00 AM - PID: 123 - Message count: 456
OK, tell me what to do!
Enemy:
Did you restarted Evolution as I told you? If you read
my message before 12:00 AM I'll kill you! And don't try
to write to anyone else!
You:
Message-ID: 11:00 AM - PID: 123 - Message count: 512
Sure!
It's a real life example!
This is a joke, but one could obtain a lot of information about user
activity if he has a good amount of e-mail, a mailing list for example.
Do you consider the patch invasive?
Have a nice day!
venom00
_______________________________________________
evolution-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
