🚀 go-pugleaf

> Suppose one and the same message gets forwarded, directly or
> indirectly, to two different mailing lists, and that a certain
> user is a member of both lists. If the intermediate hosts handling
> the mailing list created a checksum, this could be used by the
> host for the recipient user to stop displaying the same message
> twice, or, to tell him that it is the same message which he gets
> twice.

The user's mail reader can do the comparision itself without using
checksums and without trying to make some kind of network standard out of it.

> If two mailing lists are members of each other (which has advantages,
> but cannot be done with present practices on Arpanet because of the
> risk for loops) then if the list maintaining program kept a list
> of the ID-s of messages sent via the list (COM does this) then
> it could stop re-sending the message when it comes around the
> second time.

This is exactly the situation with Arpanet mailing lists gatewayed
to&from Usenet newsgroups.  I don't know the algorithm, but it clearly
works, without requiring message-ids -- and even works on digests,
where this method would fall down.
 
> Only using TEXT CONTENT is NOT acceptable. Suppose in a voting
> application that two people wrote messages with the only content
> being the word "Yes!". Only using TEXT CONTENT would hide the very
> important fact of the names of the people who voted "Yes!". Not
> using Date/time is also not acceptable, suppose the same person
> voted "Yes!" on two different issues, this fact would then be
> hidden.

Anybody who casts a vote on an issue by sending a message consisting
solely of the word "Yes" deserves whatever random thing they vote for.
The subject line will distinguish, for real-world messages.

If we ever come up with a naming scheme that everybody can implement,
and routing to match, then there won't be a problem with munged From:
addresses.  For now, and for the foreseeable future, there is.

----

Actually, the whole idea of intermediate nodes throwing messages away
because they happen to checksum like a message that came thru the
preceding day strikes me as a really bad idea.  You'd better compare
the "envelope" as well as the message, since a message can go thru a
host several times as aliases are resolved on its way to a final
destination.  I'd argue for comparing the entire message content,
which of course defeats the whole purpose, rather than throw away
a message.  We lose enough already.