Hi, > > > 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. > > > salting doesn't make a hash collision more likely.
That's why more sources of deterministic data are required and the reason to inspect inode data in my last email. > > Practical downsides of a hash: > > - renders openssl or gnutls to be required > > - Mutt must deal with both alternatives > > > mutt comes with an own copy of sha1. Aha good to know :^) > > - wastes space in the message id (even SHA1 leads to 40 chars) > > > you must be kidding ... > (also, base64 would use less space.) No. For the small purpose of avoiding collisions within a time frame of 1s a couple of extra bytes are comparatively high cost IMO. But you are right, and the timestamp could also be base64-ified to compensate. Kind regards, Gero P. S.: I move on to other topics for the time being.
