John A. Martin writes: > >> better to go ahead and use the mesage-id, rather than concoct > >> yet another "this time we mean it!" unique identifier. > > st> That's not the point. We're not going to impose this on > st> senders; > > I read the quote as meaning "this time we mean it really is unique", > imposing nothing on senders.
Ah. If so, my reply is "if you want something done right, do it yourself." *All robust databases assign a unique ID to each record.* Why shouldn't a mailing list archive do so? > Right. Maybe that will encourage compliance. The complexity of > catering to brokenness in this instance may be too high a price to > impose on the all. What complexity? Mailman just does msg['X-List-Archive-Received-ID'] = Email.msgid() (or however the message ID generator is spelled). After that, it's up to the archiver whether to do anything with it or not. I proposed a way that it could be used; if that's considered too complex, fine. But simply assigning one is not complex or otherwise very costly. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp