Subj : message-id
To   : andrew clarke
From : Jasen Betts
Date : Sat Nov 02 2002 07:25 am

  >> As a general rule, implementations for specific languages
  >> shouldn't be mentioned in documents.  I'd avoid this particular
  >> comment especially, since it makes no sense.  (time(NULL) must, by
  >> definition, be the same in any implementation.)

 ac> From the C standard:

 ac> "The time function determines the current calendar time. The
 ac> encoding of the value is unspecified.

true, but all C implementations that I'm aware of return "unixtime"
(seconds since 1/1/1970 GMT) either as a long (or posibly as a float
in some cases?)

 ac> OK.  RFC822 does actually specify a local part and a domain part
 ac> separated by '@' for the Message-ID but I can see why this might
 ac> just confuse the issue in FidoNet

I can't, explain why.

  >> Another possible note is that IDs which satisfy the MSGID standard
  >> are a strict subset of this one.

 ac> True.  I'm not sure I want to encourage their use though!

if you can fix FTS-9 we only need to replace half our software to be
compatible. for something new it all needs to be fixed. :)

 -=> Bye <=-

---
 * Origin: Every solution breeds new problems. (3:640/531.42)

.