Re: Not ready for 8.3

Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > * Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> [070515 21:19]:
> >
> > > As I proposed for many times, why don't we add message number to each
> > > subject line in mail? For example like this:
> > >
> > > [HACKERS: 12345] Re: Not ready for 8.3
> > >
> > > This way, we could always obtain stable (logical) pointer, without
> > > reling on particular archival infrastructure.
> >
> > Isn't that what the "Message-Id" field is for?
> >
> > http://news.gmane.org/find-root(dot)php?message_id=20070516(dot)101643(dot)94564776(dot)t-ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp
> > a.
>
> Maybe. However I think "subject-sequence" has some advantages over
> Message-Id:
>
> - Easy to identify. Message-Id may not appear on some MUA with default
> setting

Message-Ids are present in all messages. When the MUA doesn't set it,
the MTA does. The problem starts when the MUA doesn't set the
In-Reply-To header.

> - More handy than lengthy message Id

True.

> - Easy to detect messages not delivered, by knowing that the sequence
> number was skipped

The problem is that the number would be possibly set at a later stage of
email delivery by the list software, so it doesn't help if the message
is skipped in an earlier stage (spam filter, etc).

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support