Magnus, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > > > It would make the URLs actually short, but as mentioned upthread, that > > > wouldn't work at all if offline. So it'd be a tradeoff between those, but > > > so are pretty much all other options that don't include the full > > message-id. > > > > This is a bit of a crazy idea, but in the new list system, couldn't we > > add a header which includes "our" surrogate message-id? Or possibly the > > entire URL to the message, and maybe the URL for the entire thread? > > I'd rather not tie those systems in that tightly. I think they are much > better off being de-coupled.
I get that, but... > That said, what we could do is invent our own "id". We could either use a > separate surrogate key, or we could do the sha-1 hash of the messageid. And > stick that in a header, which could then be searched for both locally and > remotely. Yeah, that's a good thought too. I think we'd need to use a SHA1 to avoid collisions which means that it'll be a bit longer than if we used an actual ID, but it shouldn't be *too* long. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature