Mark (wolfmane@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Simon Budig <simon@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
[...]
> > Not that I am surprised that you did not get the message...
>
> Right, again with the insults. Really helpful...
Look, I did not start throwing stuff like "Baloney! You really don't
know what you are talking about." around.
You seem to be utterly convinced that you're basically the only one
knowing what we're actually discussing (and I guess to a certain extent
this is true, since you keep adding topics to the discussion and
redefining words: "Mail" suddenly no longer includes "Spam" etc.)
If someone shows evidence that your statement is just wrong you just
redefine the semantics of the words you used, insult the contradictor
and hope that nobody notices.
"I've never seen a message that didn't have a unique Message ID."
now has been redefined by you to mean "I've never seen a non-spam
message sent by a not-broken Mail client that didn't have a unique
Message ID". Which you'd recognize as a radically different statement if
you'd care.
Let alone the fact that there are plenty of scenarios where one and the
same Mail can end up multiple times in your inbox and so of course would
have the same Message-ID, e.g. when you send a mail to multiple
mailinglists you're all subscribed to.
Sure, this probably is not a problem for you, since you (guessing here)
prefer the mail client to not present you the same email multiple times.
I probably should have guessed that from your original statement as
well.
I stick to my conclusion, that the Message-IDs as defined in the
relevant RFCs are not suitable to uniquely identify instances of mails
stored on some kind of mailserver. While this kind of usage might not
hurt for certain usage patterns and even might have beneficial side
effects it is not fail-proof enough to provide the "one-size-fits-all"
solution.
Go ahead, tell me that this is not what we're discussing.
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
