Well said...... Im kinda getting fed up with my beutiful and serene N810 start screaming every 5min for xx new mails on which mail klient or server implementation can pis the farthest :p Just my 0.1€ of input on this very boring subject atm.... //Chris 11 sep 2008 kl. 18.58 skrev Eric Warnke: > 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 _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
