Viktor Dukhovni: > > On Oct 26, 2020, at 1:43 PM, Wietse Venema <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> A suffix looks like a good solution to me. > > > > On second consideration, I think I'll go for "uid:".
As in uid:123345.
Wietsse
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Wietse Venema
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Demi M. Obenour
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Nick Tait
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Demi M. Obenour
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Wietse Venema
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Wietse Venema
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Wietse Venema
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Wietse Venema
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table John Stoffel
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table John Stoffel
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Wietse Venema
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Daniele Nicolodi
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Jaroslaw Rafa
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Demi M. Obenour
- Re: Accessing the sending user from a canonical(5) table Wietse Venema
