Mark (wolfmane@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Simon Budig <simon@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Mark (wolfmane@xxxxxxxxx) 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.
> >
> > I get tons and tons of different spam messages, sharing the same message
> > id. Not that I care much about the spam, but there is nothing that
> > enforces uniqueness.
>
> You just shot yourself in the foot with that one: desireable messages
> do indeed have unique IDs, so if you get multiple messages with
> identical IDs, that's a very quick and easy way to identify and zap
> spam...
>
> The same thing applies to missing IDs - if it doesn't exist, send the
> message straight to /dev/null. Problem solved!
>
> So tell me again exactly how this is a negative or is a problem?!?!?!
It is not a problem, it just shows how your original claim above
backfires on yourself.
As I said above, I am not really talking about spam vs. ham. Your claim
did not differenciate between wanted and unwanted mail, and - as much as
I hate it - Spam messages *are* E-Mails and obviously nothing *enforces*
unique IDs, so it is notoriously unsafe to rely on their uniqueness.
Even wanted mail might have non-unique IDs since broken Mail clients are
known to exist.
Not that I am surprised that you did not get the message...
Bye,
Simon
--
simon@xxxxxxxx http://simon.budig.de/
simon.budig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.kernelconcepts.de/
_______________________________________________
maemo-users mailing list
maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
