On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 18:15 +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 the voices made Guy Hulbert write:
>
> GH> Why is there all this confusion about "security" ? The goal is to have
> GH> a unique MessageID for logs ...
>
> Then forget about the word "security", and let's just say that people might
> want to have unique IDs that'll be unique even when they've got more than one
> server and centralized/aggregated logging... But we're not even there right
> now, "we" are still stuck on how to make the IDs 100% unique within a single
> server as it might be setup by "any" qpsmtpd-user.
There have been several adequate suggestions. This is only a problem if
it goes into the qpsmtpd core since some of the suggestions are reported
to be in use already.
Perhaps it would help to agree on a list of requirements. From what I
can remember these are:
1. A unique ID per message (on one server).
2. Ability to distinguish per recipient.
3. Ability to identify the server.
A sequence solves (1) except for simultaneous processing of
incoming messages via:
a) async
b) threads/multiple cpus
c) local ports (possibly on multiple addresses)
Except with multiple CPUs, time with sufficient resolution is a
satisfactory replacement for a sequence.
It may be useful to log things like remote_port but it doesn't seem to
help directly to solve problem 1.
A counter solves 2.
Any tag which is unique per server solves 3. It is probably simpler to
make this configurable by the end-user.
>
>
>
> /Tony
--
--gh
