Re: Checksum as a replacement for missing Message-ID.

Article View: net.mail.headers

Article #473

#473

From: Jay Lepreau
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1985 06:53

4 lines
838 bytes

The real problem is that current standards don't require Message-ID's.
(How come?  I would think the need was obvious way before 822.)
Seems a hell of a lot easier just to make it a requirement than to
substitute another, much more vague, expensive, and complicated one.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <3277@utah-cs.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!utah-cs!lepreau

References: <9102@brl-tgr.ARPA>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utah-cs.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!utah-cs!lepreau
From: lepreau@utah-cs.UUCP (Jay Lepreau)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Checksum as a replacement for missing Message-ID.
Message-ID: <3277@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 01:53:00 EST
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3277
Posted: Tue Apr  9 01:53:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 04:38:33 EST
References: <9102@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Univ of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 4

Reply to Parent Message