On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 10:35 +0200, venom00 wrote:
> >     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.

it's not the mail count, it's count of calls for the message ID
generation function, which is very different and I do not expect it
being any private information, especially because it's tight to
evolution instance currently running, same as the PID. Time is set in
the Date header as well.

The current way of generating message-id is pretty much standardized.
I would change anything on it personally, I'm sorry.

evolution-hackers mailing list
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...

Reply via email to