Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > * Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070515 21:19]: > > > > > As I proposed for many times, why don't we add message number to each > > > subject line in mail? For example like this: > > > > > > [HACKERS: 12345] Re: Not ready for 8.3 > > > > > > This way, we could always obtain stable (logical) pointer, without > > > reling on particular archival infrastructure. > > > > Isn't that what the "Message-Id" field is for? > > > > http://news.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > a. > > Maybe. However I think "subject-sequence" has some advantages over > Message-Id: > > - Easy to identify. Message-Id may not appear on some MUA with default > setting
Message-Ids are present in all messages. When the MUA doesn't set it, the MTA does. The problem starts when the MUA doesn't set the In-Reply-To header. > - More handy than lengthy message Id True. > - Easy to detect messages not delivered, by knowing that the sequence > number was skipped The problem is that the number would be possibly set at a later stage of email delivery by the list software, so it doesn't help if the message is skipped in an earlier stage (spam filter, etc). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
