Subj : message-id
To   : Jasen Betts
From : andrew clarke
Date : Tue Nov 05 2002 11:49 am

Sat 2002-11-02 07:25, Jasen Betts (3:640/531.42) wrote to andrew clarke:

 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?)

Well, the point was they can return what they like.  There is also the issue of 
localtime vs UTC/GMT when it comes to using seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00.

 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.

In FidoNet it would probably end up translating to 
"localpart@originationaddress".  People will then argue about what the 
origination address really is in the case of gateways and so on.  So I suppose 
you may as well not bother with that and just have a localpart, which can be 
anything unique string at all (within reason).

 >>> 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. :)

Message-ID won't stop people from using MSGID.

-- mail@ozzmosis.com

--- Msged/NT 6.1.1
 * Origin: Blizzard of Ozz, Mt Eliza, Victoria, Australia (3:633/267)

.