Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA05086; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 10:29:04 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 10:28:56 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from jean-baptiste.CS.Berkeley.EDU by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA05073; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 10:28:55 -0400 Received: from CS.Berkeley.EDU (eric@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jean-baptiste.cs.berkeley.edu (8.7.Beta.10/8.7.Beta.9) with ESMTP id GAA00362; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 06:56:53 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199507291256.GAA00362@jean-baptiste.cs.berkeley.edu> To: Jacob Palme From: Eric Allman cc: ietf-drums Subject: Re: Message-ID mandatory In-reply-to: Mail from Jacob Palme dated Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:06:10 +0200 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 06:56:53 -0600 Sender: eric@CS.Berkeley.EDU My take on this is that creating a Message-Id that is not _guaranteed_ to be unique is worse than having the same message with different Message-Ids. I don't think it is possible to make such a guarantee using any algorithm of this sort. I think you're better off having the gateway just create a local Message-Id that is known to be unique than trying to guess. eric Re: : From: Jacob Palme : Subject: Message-ID mandatory : Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 11:06:10 +0200 (MET DST) : I suggest that the following text is added to the description of : this header field: : : A message should always be given a Message-ID by the sending : mail system. : : If, in spite of this, a message arrives without a Message-ID, : then a gateway, DL expander or other mail system may create such a : Message-ID for the message according to the rules specified below. : The creation of such a Message-ID can be useful to allow meaningful : "In-Reply-To", "References", "Obsoletes" and "Supersedes" references : to the message, to allow correlation of duplicates of the same