Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA07631; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:51:47 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:50:36 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA07513; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:50:35 -0400
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA07503; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:50:30 -0400
Received: (qmail 20441 invoked by uid 666); 1 Jul 1997 17:58:59 -0000
Date: 1 Jul 1997 17:58:59 -0000
Message-ID: <19970701175859.20440.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Message-ID creation (was: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt...)

I pointed out this problem in November 1996.

I also pointed out a solution:

   It is the responsibility of the Message-ID generator to obtain
   authorization from the domain's owner. It is the responsibility of
   the domain's owner to ensure that all authorized Message-IDs are
   distinct.

And I commented that I didn't see the point of further constraints.

Resnick said he agreed. Nobody else responded.

Yet we're having this discussion once again. Why? Does Resnick really
find it so difficult to grasp that his proposals are garbage and should
be thrown away? Why is he inventing rules beyond RFC 822 in the first
place? Why isn't he simply reporting the consensus of the working group?

---Dan
Let your users manage their own mailing lists. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html