[Mailman-Developers] Mailman headers roundup

Mark Sapiro mark at msapiro.net
Wed Nov 2 22:57:28 CET 2011

On 11/2/2011 1:31 PM, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * Barry Warsaw <barry at 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 at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan

More information about the Mailman-Developers mailing list