Hello Thomas,
On Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 5:27:13 PM Thomas [TF] wrote:
AM>> TB! uses the domain name of the sender address. What if it's
AM>> 'yahoo.com' or 'gmx.net'? These aren't at all unique either. :)
TF> To post in the usenet, you need to own an FQDN (fully-qualified domain
TF> name).
You don't. For usenet the same applies as for e-mail: MID just got to
be *unique for each message*. The *can* be reached by using your own
FQDN, because if everyone does they could even have identical
LHS-parts, the MID at whole would still be unique. People using the
same RHS-part should just make sure they never use/generate the same
LHS-part of MID, for not accidentally generating the same MID. That's
all about this story. "You need an own FQDN for posting the usenet" is
an urban legend, which much to often is quoted, because it makes it
simple to tell the people how to generate a unique MID.
TF> I have one, just for the usenet. If you use domains like gmx or
TF> yahoo, actually they must ensure that the mid is unique.
You should do your best to ensure, but how can you *make sure* it is
unique, if you use a domain like 'gmx.net' or 'yahoo.com'? You can't,
and as far as I've heard nobody ever died because of a duplicate MID,
so I'd say: if *accidentally* some day two Yahoo- or GMX-users
generate the same MID it *MIGHT* cause trouble and confusion, but
there're worse things in the world, really.
TF> Since this isn't as important in email as in news postings,
Sorry, this is bu^W nonsense. Either you hold the point "MID is a
unique message identification entity", than it's same important for
mail as it is for usenet. Or you're saying "MID on email ain't
important", that it does not necessarily need to be unique, simply
because it's not important.
TF> I am not sure that 192.x.x.x qualifies as an FQDN.
No, because it ain't neither a *name* nor a *domain name*, not to
speak about *full qualified*. But that's not the point. No RFC says
you *have* to use the FQDN, it's just the fact: "using the FQDN makes
it impressively simple to guarantee uniqueness", because no one can
(legally) have the same FQDN, if its part of a registered second level
domain and registered in DNS.
TF> In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't and you'd be flamed in the
TF> usenet. Luckily, we are not in the usenet.
Luckily. Because those who would flame are hidebound geeks, that do
not want their house of cards fall down. You know one of those
"paragraph riders", that feel picked to defend even the final period
and comma in every circumstance, of course as *they* interpret it.
There is no other possibility to read the text they refer to and if
they see a *theoretical* chance of something might go against the
rules (which they pretend like the ten directives; they never come to
the idea it's mankind made rules, therefore mankind should have
freedom to adept them to current technical development), they doom
this 'something' to be "the pure evil, directly coming from hell".
Thomas, don't get me wrong: this is nothing personal, nor against
you ("Please don't feel singled out", as an other group of list
members would write ;-)). It's just the fact there was so much
half-true or even false stuff about MIDs floating around, I could not
left your first quoted statement uncommented in the archive(s) :-)
--
Regards
Peter Palmreuther
(The Bat! v3.5 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2)
Impotens: (D)rop it (T)ry harder (U)se a broomstick
________________________________________________________
Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first -
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
