On 2006-01-18 19:32:35 +1100, Andrew Pam wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:30:11AM +0100, Ulrich Stärk wrote: > > I didn't know how likely those where to collide so I decided to use a > > generetad artificial ID. Using an integer as key should be significantly > > faster too on most database systems when retrieving a specific mail. > > Anyone out there who knows how likely key collisions are when using the > > message-id header as key? > > Message-IDs MUST be globally unique as defined in the RFCs, so the > chance of collision is zero
Depends on what you see as a collision. Do you want to treat the same
message which passes twice through the system (e.g., because it was sent
to two users or because it was resent) as one message or two? (The
content should be the same - headers (esp. received headers) may be
different).
> unless someone has very broken (or malicious) email software.
Since MTAs don't usually enforce the uniqueness of message-ids (unlike
newsserver), there is little incentive to ensure that email software
isn't broken in this regard. For example, I have seen bounces which had
the same message-ids as the mail that caused the bounce.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Ich sehe nun ein, dass Computer wenig
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | geeignet sind, um sich was zu merken.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Holger Lembke in dan-am
pgppFDIW4B78c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
