* Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> [2023-01-24 14:19]: > mid: if a known standard, as Max pointed in the earlier message: > > RFC 2392 - Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators. 1998 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2392
It is "proposed standard" and far from any ordinary use. > It makes more sense than arbitrary ideas not known to anyone, even > if they sound better for some users. Not that I can agree as heavy user of e-mails. mid: -- shall support IMAP, mbox, Maildir, file location in first place. Please think of 1998, that is year where majority of people used mbox, which meaning was that all e-mails were (mostly) in single file. And even with that single file, users were to open that file to request "mid". This implies that e-mail program had to know which file to open. That is missing argument to that proposed standard, practically no standard at all, laughable to say it is "standard". mu, notmuch and Thunderbird all use index to search for Message-ID, including online web clients. But location is missing part as on user's computer there may be too many mbox, Maildir files, mh, what else, and messages may be on IMAP server. I cannot provide to myself "mid:" hyperlink without providing location of Maildir file, if I am to use Mutt as e-mail client or any e-mail program that does not have indexing built-in. I have to specify file plus Message-ID. That would mean something like mid:///home/data1/protected/Maildir/yanta...@posteo.net&87mtz84om9.fsf@localhost because yanta...@posteo.net would be either mbox, Maildir or other format. I don't care for useless and never adopted standards from 1998. It is 2023. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/
