<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: link-threads: No Message-ID ???



* Michael Tatge <Michael.Tatge@xxxxxx> [2004:01:21:05:17:45+0100] scribed:
> * On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 Michael D Schleif (mds@xxxxxxxxxxx) muttered:
> > * Michael Tatge <Michael.Tatge@xxxxxx> [2004:01:21:03:32:32+0100] scribed:
> > > * On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 Michael D Schleif (mds@xxxxxxxxxxx) muttered:
> > > > 
> > > >    Subject: TEST #1
> > > >    Message-ID: 1073710002-7884@mimetools
>                     ^                         ^
> > > >    Subject: TEST #2
> > > >    Message-ID: 1073710002-12669@mimetools
>                     ^                          ^
> > > > Clearly, each message contains a Message-ID header
> > > 
> > > Why yes but a broken one. See http://cr.yp.to/immhf/thread.html
> 
> "In theory a message identifier is tokenizable; it contains a < token,
> an encoded address, and a > token."
> 
> The main point is <> are missing. Add them and try link-threads again.
> 
> > I do not know what is `822bis'; nor do I take issue with DJB's point;
> > but, the fact remains that the following string is decidedly _absent_
> > from my cited RFC's:
> > 
> >    ``SHOULD be the domain name of the host on which it was created''
> 
> rfc 822:
> msg-id      =  "<" addr-spec ">"            ; Unique message id
> addr-spec   =  local-part "@" domain        ; global address

Touche!

Thank you.

I've been staring at these pair of messages for three days, and I did
not notice that difference ;<

O, I need to get my eyes checked, perhaps on a bright sandy beach in the
Caribbean . . .

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature