Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> >> Baloney! You really don't know what you are talking about. Unique > >> >> message ID's are part of the internet mail standard. I've never seen a > >> >> message that didn't have a unique Message ID. [...] > > Not that I am surprised that you did not get the message... > > Right, again with the insults. Really helpful...
Look, I did not start throwing stuff like "Baloney! You really don't know what you are talking about." around. You seem to be utterly convinced that you're basically the only one knowing what we're actually discussing (and I guess to a certain extent this is true, since you keep adding topics to the discussion and redefining words: "Mail" suddenly no longer includes "Spam" etc.) If someone shows evidence that your statement is just wrong you just redefine the semantics of the words you used, insult the contradictor and hope that nobody notices. "I've never seen a message that didn't have a unique Message ID." now has been redefined by you to mean "I've never seen a non-spam message sent by a not-broken Mail client that didn't have a unique Message ID". Which you'd recognize as a radically different statement if you'd care. Let alone the fact that there are plenty of scenarios where one and the same Mail can end up multiple times in your inbox and so of course would have the same Message-ID, e.g. when you send a mail to multiple mailinglists you're all subscribed to. Sure, this probably is not a problem for you, since you (guessing here) prefer the mail client to not present you the same email multiple times. I probably should have guessed that from your original statement as well. I stick to my conclusion, that the Message-IDs as defined in the relevant RFCs are not suitable to uniquely identify instances of mails stored on some kind of mailserver. While this kind of usage might not hurt for certain usage patterns and even might have beneficial side effects it is not fail-proof enough to provide the "one-size-fits-all" solution. Go ahead, tell me that this is not what we're discussing. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://simon.budig.de/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kernelconcepts.de/ _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users