No Jeff-relevant discussion here, I think, so I'm not going to spam.
Barry Warsaw writes:
The last two are too easily confused with Archived-At.
Suggestions welcome. :)
When I have one, of course. But it's worth ruling out non-starters quickly, if possible.
Yes. The problem is that there are people out there with MUAs that provide bogus Message-IDs (Kyle Jones's VM used to do that), and for those people all messages after the first get dropped.
As you know, I have limited tolerance for broken MUAs.
As I also know, you don't usually impose your opinions on third parties with a different point of view. And the first mission of mail-related applications is to make sure mail gets to where it's suppose to go. Or do you want your name cursed in the same breath with AOL and "Yahoo!"? :-)
Gosh, do people still use VM? :)
Sure. The main difference between VM "virtual folders" and Gmail "labels" is that virtual folders actually do what labels are advertised to do. :-)
Right. MM3 does not current reject messages with duplicate Message-IDs, but I think it should.
That sounds like a mess to me. For one thing, do you mean "reject" (and the sender gets a bounce) or "discard" (silently)? Neither of those sounds like a good thing to me.
I'd much rather that it reject messages with duplicate content and different Message-IDs. ;-)
Well, that's true for *us*. The folks at the IETF don't have a habit of leaving well enough alone, though. ;-)
Right, so let's do what *we* think is right, right now, and let the committee take 10 years to define a standard. ;)
Hey, that's *my* ten years you're offering there!