[Barry Warsaw] > On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 05:13, Harald Meland wrote: >> 2) Whenever Mailman receives a message whose message-id is already >> present in the archives, the original Message-Id: header is >> renamed to e.g. X-Original-Message-Id:, and Mailman generates a >> fresh (as in "not yet present in the archives") message-id before >> the message is either archived or sent to the list members. > > This is what I was thinking about. Alternatively we could rewrite all > message-id headers when we accept the message. That would guarantee > uniqueness but it would break the correlation of message-ids between > list copies and direct copies. Is that bad?
I don't think the RFCs speak clearly of this either way; however, it would break things for people who use message-id-based techniques to correlate received duplicates. On the other hand, such message-id-based techniques are IMHO workarounds for the ((still) very common) problem of people/programs not respecting the various (more-or-less standard) headers for directing where replies should go. The less aggressive approach would surely be to only generate new Message-Id:s for messages that already exist in a list's archive. > (note that we already do this for NNTP posted messages, and there > has been some off-list discussion about that). The Message-Id: field is (very) much more significant in NNTP than it is in SMTP. -- Harald _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
