Date:Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:04:11 +1000
From:Joel Reicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Nevertheless, I don't agree that the nmh algorithm is fine. On the
| contrary, I think most of what you've said constitutes an argument in
| favour of des
> | Perhaps you are making a point about the way nmh generates message-ids?
> | Should the algorithm be smarter than it is for us to change the
> | default with a clear conscience?
>
> No, that's not it, the algorithm is fine (look at my message-id header,
> you'll see nothing there differen
On Apr 9, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
Uniqueness is what is needed - the hostname issue is that I know of
know
way to ensure uniqueness without some kind of global registry
The best uniqueness property for a message is the message itself.
Derive the message-id from a cryptographi
Date:Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:38:15 +1000
From:Joel Reicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I was going to put it in the ChangeLog and give it a somewhat
| prominent place in the 1.3 release announcement.
I'm not sure I can convince myself that mo
> Date:Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:55 +1000
> From:Joel Reicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | I get the feeling this might be catching many people, and my preference
> | would be to put "-msgid" in the defaults for "send".
>
> I might too
Robert Elz wrote:
>From:Joel Reicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | I get the feeling this might be catching many people, and my preference
> | would be to put "-msgid" in the defaults for "send".
>
>I might too (see below for possibly why not), if MH were just being released
>now - but this
Date:Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:55 +1000
From:Joel Reicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I get the feeling this might be catching many people, and my preference
| would be to put "-msgid" in the defaults for "send".
I might too (see below for p
>> Strange. I see aliases expanded in the "fcc:" copy.
>So do I. I said "local user names". "ralph" isn't an alias, it's a
>user in /etc/passwd. forwarding on an fcc copy leaves it as a plain
Yes, you did. When in fact, what you meant was non-fully qualified addresses.
There is very much a diff
Hi Neil,
> > Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local
> > user names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming
> > `to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is
> > vital for referring someone back to an earlier email. I dcc myself
> > and file t
> I see a
> message-id header. The message-id header results from "send: -msgid"
> in my profile.
I get the feeling this might be catching many people, and my preference
would be to put "-msgid" in the defaults for "send". I think it makes
more sense for the software constructing the message to c
I didn't read the comp.mail.mh article, so maybe I'm repeating what was
said there. But whenever I use dcc:, I always end up saving those lines
to a temporary file (or copying them with my mouse), then editing my
copy to add that field to it -- so I can find out, later, who I sent the
message
Ralph Corderoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mar 30, 2007:
>Agreed.
>Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local user
>names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming `to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is vital for
>referring someone back to
Hi Jerrad,
> > Perhaps I wasn't clear. If I have
>
> Indeed.
Actually, I was just being polite. My second message merely repeated
the information that was in the first.
> > The former isn't very helpful if I ever wish to dist or forw the
> > email on. No message-id is a killer.
>
> Meh, it s
>Perhaps I wasn't clear. If I have
Indeed.
>The former isn't very helpful if I ever wish to dist or forw the email
>on. No message-id is a killer.
Meh, it saves a copy of the draft.
No alias expansion, and (in theory) no header strippage.
This preserves as much information as possible; potenti
Hi Jerrad,
> > Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local
> > user names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming
> > `to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is
> > vital for
>
> Erm, it's not at all useless, you're misusing it. Fcc is for filin
>Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local user
>names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming `to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is vital for
Erm, it's not at all useless, you're misusing it. Fcc is for filing a
local copy, it expects a f
Hi Paul,
> joel wrote:
> > 1) Some people have commented on the comp.mail.mh newsgroup that Bcc
> > and Dcc headers should not be removed before Fcc is processed, so
> > that the Fcc copy contains them. Since the default components has
> > Fcc: +outbox in it I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone dis
joel wrote:
> 1) Some people have commented on the comp.mail.mh newsgroup that Bcc and
>Dcc headers should not be removed before Fcc is processed, so that the
>Fcc copy contains them. Since the default components has
>Fcc: +outbox
>in it I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone disag
Joel Reicher wrote:
>2) I think the current CVS code should be released as 1.3. If nobody
> objects, I will change the version string to "1.3-RC1" and upload a
> 1.3-RC1 tarball. When all issues are worked out, I'll tag the code in
> CVS as RELEASE_1_3, change the version string to "1.3", and
Hi all,
Two things:
1) Some people have commented on the comp.mail.mh newsgroup that Bcc and
Dcc headers should not be removed before Fcc is processed, so that the
Fcc copy contains them. Since the default components has
Fcc: +outbox
in it I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone disagree?
20 matches
Mail list logo
