Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA04572; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:21:06 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:20:19 -0500
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu (WILMA.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.141]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA04385; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:20:16 -0500
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id NAA17540; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:20:14 -0500
Message-Id: <199603251820.NAA17540@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Jochen Friedrich <eurjof@eur.sas.com>
cc: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>, moore@cs.utk.edu,
        drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: from the Chair: whether Message-IDs MUST be present 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:43:37 +0100."
             <Pine.HPP.3.92.960325173640.24089C-100000@vetters.eur.sas.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:20:08 -0500
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu

> Sorry for the misunderstanding, i meant unique as a one-to-one
> relationship between message and Message-Id. 

In practice, you can't count on this anyway.  There are too many
gateways and/or list managers that remove message-id from a message.
Ideally, this shouldn't happen, but sometimes it is unavoidable.

Keith