On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 08:05:06AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 10:53:41AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > > The unfathomable thing about this question is why you (or anyone) > > should care in the slightest what your message ID looks like. > > That's totally true, but I still like the classic Mutt message-id > format.
Did you set your message ID format accordingly, then? Because the
message I'm replying to carries this:
Message-ID: <20240409150506.ga47...@aura.veggiechinese.net>
If so that feature may not be working correctly...
> Maybe it's just nostalgia, but either way, I'm not super
> worried about leaking my PID etc...
Nor should you be--as I pointed out then, the PID is only of any use
to an attacker who is already on your system, which means either:
1. Your system is already compromised, or
2. They are a legitimate user on your system, in which case they can
already easily get the pid of your mail client
In no way can a process ID be construed as sensitive. If it were
you'd have to disable the ps command, modify the logging of virtually
every network daemon ever, and a whole bunch of other things.
> I think some people mentioned some minor threading issues with the new
> format?
Is that so? I don't recall noticing anything about that... I'd love a
pointer to some details, if anyone has that. Anyway, I said then, and
maintain now, that changing the format and making it configurable was
pointless and added complexity without good technical justification.
You may have just proven that. =8^)
--
Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
