On 11/2/2011 1:31 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
- Barry Warsaw <barry@list.org>:
Thanks for coordinating this Patrick.
On Oct 30, 2011, at 08:04 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
X-Message-ID-Hash propose an RFC as an extension of RFC 5064 Modify to: unclear Next Step: Discuss
As an RFC, obviously we'd drop the X- prefix, but also "Hash" might be too vague. Personally I think Message-ID-Hash is fine and the theoretical RFC shouldn't allow much leeway in implementations (i.e. only one hash algorithm is allowed). This will probably be bikeshedded to death. Still, since Message-ID must be unique (and generally is, as backed up by The Mail Archive's data), I think base-32 of SHA-1 will in practice be just fine.
As a sidenote: Postfix 2.9 will introduce longer Message-IDs because a Message-ID is only stable while the message is in the server (queue), but it may be reused immediately after the first message had been delivered - that's RFC compliant. This has caused problems with long time log analysis software and archival and that's why Postfix 2.9 will offer longer Message-IDs (read also: Queue-IDs).
I think the Message-ID to which you refer in the above paragraph is the Postfix queue ID and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Message-ID: header or (X-)Message-ID-Hash which is a hash of that header.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan