On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 01:23:50PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 01:57:50PM -0400, Remco Rijnders wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:26:34PM -0500, Derek wrote in
> In other words, this scheme does not guarantee uniqueness, and is
> therefore broken.
Well, the odds of the same number being selected are about 1 in 2 billion
(on modern day Linux, admittedly), while the odds of winning the jackpot in
the Powerball lottery are about 1 in 292 million.
If your RNG is working properly.
you have much bigger issues (with mutt alone) if it isn't.
anyway, an alternative to randomizing would be sha1'ing everything
except the timestamp - the probability of a clash is just beyond the
pale. in fact, i think i've seen message ids that do just that, as they
looked like <small_number.really_big_number>.
on a tangent, mutt's thread linking features do not work if the
message-ids lack the <angle brackets>. i presume these might be invalid,
but they are rather common nonetheless. someone feels like having a
look?
