[maemo-users] Diablo's Modest/Email
From: Simon Budig simon at budig.deDate: Thu Sep 11 12:06:13 EEST 2008
- Previous message: Diablo's Modest/Email
- Next message: Diablo's Modest/Email
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mark (wolfmane at gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Simon Budig <simon at budig.de> wrote: > > Mark (wolfmane at gmail.com) wrote: > >> Baloney! You really don't know what you are talking about. Unique > >> message ID's are part of the internet mail standard. I've never seen a > >> message that didn't have a unique Message ID. > > > > I get tons and tons of different spam messages, sharing the same message > > id. Not that I care much about the spam, but there is nothing that > > enforces uniqueness. > > You just shot yourself in the foot with that one: desireable messages > do indeed have unique IDs, so if you get multiple messages with > identical IDs, that's a very quick and easy way to identify and zap > spam... > > The same thing applies to missing IDs - if it doesn't exist, send the > message straight to /dev/null. Problem solved! > > So tell me again exactly how this is a negative or is a problem?!?!?! It is not a problem, it just shows how your original claim above backfires on yourself. As I said above, I am not really talking about spam vs. ham. Your claim did not differenciate between wanted and unwanted mail, and - as much as I hate it - Spam messages *are* E-Mails and obviously nothing *enforces* unique IDs, so it is notoriously unsafe to rely on their uniqueness. Even wanted mail might have non-unique IDs since broken Mail clients are known to exist. Not that I am surprised that you did not get the message... Bye, Simon -- simon at budig.de http://simon.budig.de/ simon.budig at kernelconcepts.de http://www.kernelconcepts.de/
- Previous message: Diablo's Modest/Email
- Next message: Diablo's Modest/Email
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]