On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 06:54:36PM -0700, Kevin wrote in
<20200419015436.gi29...@afu.lan>:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 08:00:24PM -0400, Remco Rijnders wrote:
These might all seem far fetched, but the point is, information is
being disclosed that is of no value to be included in the Message-ID
header.
The information does have value for the purposes of uniqueness.
But your examples have given me pause and I will think about this more
during the next development cycle.
Fair enough, and that is all I had hoped for. Thank you for giving it some
thought and thank you for all the work you've been doing on keeping mutt
maintained and relevant in recent years, I really appreciate it!
I would like to withdraw my proposed patch in its current form as it
resulted in a warning at compile time (I should have used %ld instead of
%d for the format), and also because I am concerned about the chance of
collissions on platforms with a smaller RAND_MAX as I do not know how
prevalent they might be.
On the proposal to use a hashed value for the GA12345 part, I now have
some doubts as I think it would be a small effort to iterate through all
plausible values for this to regenerate the hashes and still make
observations based on those results. You would have to salt the values in
some way before the hash and that might effect the deterministic part
you'd like to keep.
As you can see from this message, I am still experimenting/entertaining
some other options, this current one using two random numbers as the date
and timestamp included are redundant information that is already included
in the other headers on my system as pointed out by Derek. This really
simplifies the code even further, but does not yet address the RAND_MAX
concern.
Regards,
Remco
