On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry@list.org> wrote:
Mailman 3 itself requires unique Message-IDs.
So? FWIW, I don't think I agree with that requirement (even RFC 5322 doesn't make it a "MUST"), but I'm not going to argue with you about Mailman 3 design, that's your pidgin. But there's nothing particularly Mailman-3-dependent about archiver web UIs, though. I don't see any reason why the front end shouldn't be used on my several gigs of personal archives going back to about 1980, eg, or as a poor man's webmail.
IIRC, the Mail Archive guys found a very very low collision rate over millions of messages, and I think all such cases were basically spam.
Sure, but XEmacs archives go back to at least 1994. mailarchive.com is a more recent phenomenon. In the early days of Linux/*BSD diffusion, there were lots of buggy MUAs/very simple MTAs out there.
hash ID, and YY... are the remaining ones). But it could easily be backed by an IMAP store or something more specialized; we don't really care as long as it's object-ID-addressable.
Don't forget too that the LMTP runner automatically adds the X-Message-ID-Hash header, which is a Base32 encoding of the SHA1 hash of the Message-ID contents (without the angle brackets). This hash could be used as well.
It doesn't do that for subobject content IDs, and more important, users don't necessarily have the X-Message-ID-Hash (they may have not-metoo set, they may have gotten the message as a direct Cc). True, it's easy enough to compute -- if you're a Mailman 3 developer and know it's present.<wink/> And, of course, why have a Mailman 3 dependency that is absolutely unnecessary?