Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA04894; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 06:20:58 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 06:20:56 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA04872; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 06:20:50 -0400 Message-Id: <199507271020.GAA04872@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1063; Thu, 27 Jul 95 12:16:17 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 1753; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:16:17 +0200 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:11:29 +0200 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Message-ID mandatory To: ietf-drums , Jacob Palme In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:06:10 +0200 (MET DST) from Jacob Palme On Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:06:10 +0200 (MET DST) Jacob Palme said: >Algorithm for creation of a Message-ID for a message which lacks such an >ID: > >Take the contents of the "Date" heading field, concatenate this with the >content of the "Subject" field, convert any spaces to dashes, >concatenate this with the e-mail address in the "From" field. Put an >asterisk between each of the values concatenated to separate the parts >in the combined string. What I don't like with this proposal is that you get a very long message ID, possibly in the 150-200 byte range, and it may contain all sorts of special characters. This is bound to create trouble. Of course personally I think that if a C program made the assumption a message ID would never be more than 40 bytes and crashes, the programmer is getting what he deserves. But unfortunately 99% of the victims will think otherwise and this will make your RFC very impopular. I think you should just generate a new unique message ID. Eric