Can we all just drop this.. Under diablo there is 1) Modest 2) Claws If you can't use one of those stick to Chinook and osso-mail; you are also free to compile or port your own mail app. The nitty gritty discussion about who has the bigger, faster, more redundant, message-ID's is getting old. -Eric On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Simon Budig <simon@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
