[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aidan Van Dyk) writes:
> * Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070516 07:23]:
>> 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
>> - More handy than lengthy message Id
>> - Easy to detect messages not delivered, by knowing that the sequence
>>   number was skipped
> IMNSHO, we should be encouraging lists to move *away* from subject
> munging.  Adding more characters into a subject line which can already
> be quite long is just making the situation worse.
> And of course, once you realize that subject munging is wrong, putting
> the "list-sequence" into a header of no real value, unless you believe
> your MTA/MUA filtering to be somehow dropping list messages, and your
> sequence numbers will prove to you if that's true or not.  Oh - but
> wait, don't we all, as PostgreSQL users realize that sequences aren't
> generally guaranteed to be gapless anyways (sure, there are work
> "solutions", but I'm not about to audit any MTA/list software for
> that...)
> ;-)

The message ID *ought* to be usable for at least some of the desired
purposes; having a web client that uses message IDs as a query
mechanism, and where switching months doesn't ludicrously break
things, would seem to be one part of the solution.

Adding some sort of (I don't know...) database that associates bug
tracking system items with message IDs would seem like an "along-side"
way of linking in relevant information.

Adding x-???: tags might be a way of adding bug tracking information
into messages; it wouldn't help with original copies, but could be a
reasonable change to make in a given message repository.
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")
If nothing ever sticks to Teflon, how do they make Teflon stick to the

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to