> > There is nothing to do with the paranoia !!
> here but rather a very bad implementation decision in my opinion. It's the "normal" way of generating Message-IDs - I've seen lots of other MUAs use it. > What I am trying to request here is that Message-ID should not use _plain > text_ internal_hostname.internal_domainname. > The simplest solution in my opinion is to use any kind of one way encryption > for the existing right of @ part. > This would preserve all existing Message-ID logic and completely hide > internal_hostname.internal_domainname. > Adding sender email domain (after encrypted part) aka Thunderbird is > optional... > > Is my explanation clear? > I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's an issue. What is wrong with using the name of the computer in the Message-ID? The host is behind a NAT, so it's not as if you are inviting people to try and attack it. So yes, it exposes some information, but that information is, as far as I can see, fairly useless. Unless, of course, you have called your computer something really embarrassing ... Nevertheless, if you think it's an issue, then file a bug report - it's the only way something is going to change. It's then up to the developers to decide if it's something they want to change. P. _______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
