Hi Thomas, On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:32:28 +0700 UTC (5/24/2005, 11:32 AM -0500 UTC my time), Thomas Fernandez wrote:
G>> The spec does not differentiate between email, USENET, or mailing lists, T> This is a mistake, IMHO. For technical reasons: T> News postings get propagated over the world via various news servers. T> That's why the mid needs to be unique. Mids are nothing more than previous message-IDs relating to that email. Since all message-IDs are unique, mids will be unique under any circumstance. Unique IDs are generated via different algorithms by the client, most likely time stamps. T> Mailings on mailing lists don't work that way. They are contained within T> the ML. Even though they are made readable with newreaders via Gmane T> (like this list), they will be contained. Just an observation... many, many ML (by the way the list is setup), not only go back to the list, but also are CC'd to all individuals from the person responding to that email. Why, many lists do not require a subscription, and anyone can post to it. So how can there be any containment? T> I see no reason to be the owner of the domain when posting to an ML, but T> it does makes sense when posting to an NG. IMHO, too many variables with lists... Isn't that why we have RFCs? - a set of uniform standards. BTW, many USENET users do use fake domains when posting also, too much spam generated... However, additional headers are always added by the newsgroup subscriber that you log into to get on USENET, when posting to a newsgroup, which show your IP, or IIRC, (it's been many years since I was on one), the reverse IP address, for tracking purposes. So, like pure email, there is accountability. -- Gary ________________________________________________________ Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
