>My view is that not having a Message-Id in your +outbox messages is a >lot more broken than having a sub-optimal Message-Id. The chance of it >being broken (being non-unique) is non-zero, but damn near. So, >"breaking existing user's setups" is a bit strong.
You know, maybe I'm crazy ... but now that I think about it, I don't have any Message-Ids in any of my outbox messages ... and I don't care. Like, at all. I've simply never needed it. So ... what's the big deal? Am I missing something amazingly obvious that having a Message-Id on outbox messages gets me? Ralph Corderoy said that he hates fcc because by default it doesn't include a Message-Id, and without it he cannot refer someone to an earler email. I guess I don't understand his point ... how does having a Message-Id help you there? (I am neutral on changing the default, BTW ... I just want to understand what I'm missing). --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
