On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@list.org> wrote:
> - Proposal is to append the List-Post value as input to the hash, after > the Message-ID value (sans angle brackets). First, List-POST, not List-ID? List-Post is not permanent! Second, that order is wrong IMHO; the idea of the hash is to identify the message in a fixed-length format. If you want to qualify it with list information, why not add the list identifier to the *output* of the hash? Now you have a well-defined[1] format that (1) allows you to distinguish cross-posted instances of the same message *and* (2) identify cross-posted instances of the same message, depending on your application. Yoroshiku, Steve [1] I haven't read the List-ID RFC recently, but I think its format is quite restricted and likely to be of reasonable length. I don't see why Mailman can't require a List-ID for every list. _______________________________________________ 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
