On 11/2/2011 1:31 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > * Barry Warsaw <ba...@list.org>: >> Thanks for coordinating this Patrick. >> >> On Oct 30, 2011, at 08:04 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: >> >>> X-Message-ID-Hash >>> propose an RFC as an extension of RFC 5064 >>> Modify to: unclear >>> Next Step: Discuss >> >> As an RFC, obviously we'd drop the X- prefix, but also "Hash" might be too >> vague. Personally I think Message-ID-Hash is fine and the theoretical RFC >> shouldn't allow much leeway in implementations (i.e. only one hash algorithm >> is allowed). This will probably be bikeshedded to death. Still, since >> Message-ID must be unique (and generally is, as backed up by The Mail >> Archive's data), I think base-32 of SHA-1 will in practice be just fine. > > As a sidenote: Postfix 2.9 will introduce longer Message-IDs because a > Message-ID is only stable while the message is in the server (queue), but it > may be reused immediately after the first message had been delivered - that's > RFC compliant. This has caused problems with long time log analysis software > and archival and that's why Postfix 2.9 will offer longer Message-IDs (read > also: Queue-IDs).
I think the Message-ID to which you refer in the above paragraph is the Postfix queue ID and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Message-ID: header or (X-)Message-ID-Hash which is a hash of that header. -- Mark Sapiro <m...@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
