Subject: Re: #1416

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:59:16 -0700 (PDT)

"Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>That is because the server's record of message IDs is a
>finite list in practice.

>No one should offer an opinion on how to resolve #1416
>unless and until they understand this point.

Ignore that other draft behind the curtain, _I_ am the great and powerful 
USEPRO! Believe what I say, even if we said something different before.

If this is point is so critical, then USEFOR should have said it, instead 
of what it does say.

If you want to reopen USEFOR and debate whether "message id" or "message 
id plus date" is the globally, chonologically unique identification for a 
message, I'm game. If you don't want USEFOR to say "forever", then let's 
debate it and make the change. We should not say "forever" if we don't 
mean it, just like we shouldn't say "MUST" unless there is a valid reason.

No, there is no reason to add "date" to the message id. You keep a list of 
message ids and the starting date of the list. You make the statement in 
USEPRO that servers can ASSUME that any article with a Date prior to the 
starting date of the history has been seen and is thus a duplicate. End of 
problem. You assume the message id is unique, just add a different test 
for acceptance.

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:51:02 -0700

[email-masked] writes:

> No, there is no reason to add "date" to the message id. You keep a list
> of message ids and the starting date of the list. You make the statement
> in USEPRO that servers can ASSUME that any article with a Date prior to
> the starting date of the history has been seen and is thus a
> duplicate. End of problem. You assume the message id is unique, just add
> a different test for acceptance.

I *think* that this is what the current draft says, and hence we're just
arguing over wording of e-mail messages on the list and not actually about
the work product of the group.  At least, the above was certainly my
intention when writing the current document.  If the current document
*doesn't* say that in anyone's reading, please do raise where it's not
clear.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>