On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> Magnus, > > * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > > It would make the URLs actually short, but as mentioned upthread, that > > wouldn't work at all if offline. So it'd be a tradeoff between those, but > > so are pretty much all other options that don't include the full > message-id. > > This is a bit of a crazy idea, but in the new list system, couldn't we > add a header which includes "our" surrogate message-id? Or possibly the > entire URL to the message, and maybe the URL for the entire thread? > I'd rather not tie those systems in that tightly. I think they are much better off being de-coupled. That said, what we could do is invent our own "id". We could either use a separate surrogate key, or we could do the sha-1 hash of the messageid. And stick that in a header, which could then be searched for both locally and remotely. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
