Hello Peter, On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:40:25 +0200 GMT (25/05/2005, 00:40 +0700 GMT), Peter Palmreuther wrote:
TF>> To post in the usenet, you need to own an FQDN (fully-qualified domain TF>> name). PP> You don't. I thought I did. Mine is @thomas-bkk.my-fqdn.de. Search Google News and you'll find my postings. This goes back to http://einklich.net/usenet/netscape.htm (sorry to the others, it's in German) and to flames I got on the usenet using GMX mids in the beginning. PP> For usenet the same applies as for e-mail: MID just got to PP> be *unique for each message*. OK, let's talk about RFCs. There was one (pertaining to the usenet only) saying that you need to own the domain if you want to create mids from it. I'll search for that RFC, but maybe you're faster. PP> "You need an own FQDN for posting the usenet" is an urban legend, PP> which much to often is quoted, because it makes it simple to tell PP> the people how to generate a unique MID. Tell that to Volker Gringmuth (a guru on the de.* hierarchy of the usenet). TF>> I have one, just for the usenet. If you use domains like gmx or TF>> yahoo, actually they must ensure that the mid is unique. PP> You should do your best to ensure, but how can you *make sure* it is PP> unique, if you use a domain like 'gmx.net' or 'yahoo.com'? You can't, Exactly. PP> and as far as I've heard nobody ever died because of a duplicate MID, PP> so I'd say: if *accidentally* some day two Yahoo- or GMX-users PP> generate the same MID it *MIGHT* cause trouble and confusion, but PP> there're worse things in the world, really. See above. TF>> Since this isn't as important in email as in news postings, PP> Sorry, this is bu^W nonsense. Either you hold the point "MID is a PP> unique message identification entity", than it's same important for PP> mail as it is for usenet. Or you're saying "MID on email ain't PP> important", that it does not necessarily need to be unique, simply PP> because it's not important. You misunderstand. News postings get propagated across servers, ML postings don't. TF>> I am not sure that 192.x.x.x qualifies as an FQDN. PP> No, because it ain't neither a *name* nor a *domain name*, not to PP> speak about *full qualified*. ACK. PP> But that's not the point. Aha. PP> No RFC says you *have* to use the FQDN, This is the point I'll have to prove to you. TF>> In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't and you'd be flamed in the TF>> usenet. Luckily, we are not in the usenet. PP> Luckily. Because those who would flame are hidebound geeks, that do PP> not want their house of cards fall down. You know one of those PP> "paragraph riders", that feel picked to defend even the final period PP> and comma in every circumstance, of course as *they* interpret it. True. Are you on the de.* hierarchy of the usenet? PP> Thomas, don't get me wrong: this is nothing personal, nor against PP> you ("Please don't feel singled out", as an other group of list PP> members would write ;-)). It's just the fact there was so much PP> half-true or even false stuff about MIDs floating around, I could not PP> left your first quoted statement uncommented in the archive(s) :-) I don't take this personally, don't worry. We are discussing an issue, and I need to find that RFC Volker G. refers to. -- Cheers, Thomas. There are a lot of drunk people about to drive home, so drive as fast as you can. It's harder for drunk people to hit you. Message reply created with The Bat! 3.5 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.5.0.16 | '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/
