In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chuck Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J.B. Moreno" wrote:
-snip-
> > Uhm, that's exactly my point -- the idea that the email address in the
> > From in a post shouldn't be used in the message-id of that post because
> > of "privacy" concerns is quite simply bullshit; it has no basis in
> > reality.
> >
> > Now, if someone were to suggest that a particular address ought to be
> > used regardless of which identity is being used to make the post, then
> > /that/ would be a privacy concern. But no one is advocating that.
> >
>
> Except Holger. Read his posts carefully. My simple minded header
> corruption is retrograde to his desires yet what I did is not forbidden
> by the RFC's in any direct way.
His concern wasn't, in <9ft363$5t71i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which is
what I assume you are talking about, about privacy, but instead about
what you are allowed to use in order to form the id.
And I answered that objection in another post -- it's implicit in the
right to use the domain as your email address that you can also use
that domain in forming message-id's for messages (mail or news) that
use that email address.
He also had some concern about the id being unique, and I also
addressed that -- basically it is a non-problem, the odds of collision
being too low to be meaningful.
--
J.B. Moreno
