Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA21965; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:21:59 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:21:57 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from vall.dsv.su.se by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA21958; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:21:55 -0400 Received: from ester.dsv.su.se (ester.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.10]) by vall.dsv.su.se (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA19217; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:21:53 +0200 Received: by ester.dsv.su.se (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA11824; Thu, 27 Jul 95 16:21:52 +0200 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:21:52 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jacob Palme X-Sender: jpalme@ester To: Eric Thomas Cc: ietf-drums Subject: Re: Message-ID mandatory In-Reply-To: <199507271020.MAA24756@mars.dsv.su.se> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Eric Thomas wrote: > 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. What about a checksum, in that case, of the concatenated string. A checksum can be short, and still have a very very small risk of being identical to the checksum of a different string. And a checksum can easily be encoded into a string which does not include any characters with syntax problems. The checksum would have the same advantage, that any system which generates a Message-ID in this way would get the same ID. I guess you have encountered the same problem when you wrote Listserv? Listserv perhaps does assign Message-ID-s to messages it receives, before expanding them. And from what you say I conclude that Listserv does not try to use an algorithm which would give the same Message-ID as that generated by another system (e.g. another Listserv-er) would generate. (I have a vague memory that we did discuss this matter a year ago or so, in a personal mail exchange. Did we not?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme