Re: lynx-dev well formed Message-ID:

[Klaus Weide]

On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 address@hidden wrote:

> >     * From: David Woolley <address@hidden>
> >     * In-Reply-To: <[7]mailstart.2/1/99.2207.282.> from
> >       "address@hidden" at Feb 1, 99 00:37:41 am
> >
> >PS Your message ID is illegally formed and caused this message to be filed
> >in my probable spam folder.  Message IDs are a unique code formed from
> >some locally unique code, an "@" and the fully qualified name of the machine
> >assigning the local code.  Yours had no @.
> 
> I fear that you will find this is the subject of a tacet debate.
> 
> The privacy/anonymity interest is ill served by putting a node of origin
> in the mid.

Requiring a *correctly formed* Message-ID doesn't collide with any
privacy/anonymity interests.

> There is a candidate replacement from Windows -- is it the X-UIDL stamp?

You're very cryptic here... replacement for which of the functions of
Message-ID?  In which protocols?

Without Message-IDs there wouldn't be Usenet or NNTP.

> This is one like the file-extension vs. MIME-type header where I think it
> is going to take more than a few grumbles to the choir to turn the situation
> around.

What IS is going to take, in your opinion?   (and do you regard lynx-dev as
the choir? :)  )

    Klaus