On 2020-04-19 16:34:57 +0200, Gero Treuner wrote: > 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.
But why not using a cryptographic hash for the full local part, then? This could be based on the full message (including the generated headers at this point) + some random number. If there is a collision, this would mean that the messages are the same, so that I don't think this is an issue in practice... Or that cryptographic protocols are broken, which would be a much more important issue than Message-Id collisions. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
