E-mail conventions (was: Re: [plug] Debian VS Mandrake)

[James Devenish]

In message <1086374663.3794.82.camel at Ultima>
on Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:44:23AM +0800, Brock Woolf wrote:
> > > PS. Brock, is it possible to make your mail system generate Message-IDs
> > > that end in something more distinct than '@localhost'? Just an idea for
> > > something to do if you're ever bored.
> 
> By the way, i do understand your question, but. What's a system generate
> Message-IDs.

In my original sentence, the word "generate" was a verb and there is no
way I can directly address the question "What's a 'system generate
Message-IDs'" -- it doesn't make sense. What I was asking was whether
you can adjust your software (be it your mail client or your mail
transfer system) to alter the composition of its Message-IDs (see more
info below).

> [On the topic of Message-IDs:] Is there a way in evolution to view
> them? And how do you edit them. I have vaguely heard of them.

In effect, each Internet e-mail and newsgroup message is supposed to
have a globally-unique Message-ID. The Message-ID enables messages to be
retrieved or identified in archives, newsgroups, log files (important
for diagnosing mail problems), and can be used to prevent duplicate
postings, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. These things break down without
uniqueness of Message-IDs. In order to strengthen the likelihood of
uniqueness, the portion appearing after the "@" sign should be
non-trivial (often, a fully-qualified DNS name is used). Although
"ultima" is better than "localhost", it would be even better if it were
something like a fully-qualified DNS hostname (or mail domain, at
least). "Almost everyone else" on this list seems to have 'good'
Message-IDs, so I'm not sure why your case is different. (I think I
previously mentioned a "twist of fate" -- I guess that still applies!)

In message <1086371247.3794.74.camel at Ultima>
on Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 01:47:27AM +0800, Brock Woolf wrote:
> So like people that have been "picking" on my emails. Learn to
> give a new guy a break[...]Or wait.... maybe I am wrong. Maybe a
> clause should be added to the GPL "Brock Woolf may never use any GPL,
> or GPL derived code ever, as his 2 > or 3 un-uniformed postings on the
> Perth Linux Users Group mailing list" > were not rigourously filtered
> and have annoyed a couple of people...Any thoughts?

Er...I think you missed my point. If you've noticed, one of the
principal functions of this list is for people to give advice to other
people, as we have been doing to you in regards to your e-mail. As it
happens ("by a twist of fate", as I said) you've managed to commit a
number of prominent "sins" simultaneously -- thus you have been on the
receiving end of the latest round of "advice". The advice is not
"personal", it is the same advice that everyone else receives.

And here's one more bit of advice... :-) When you quote, I think you
should ensure that the name of the original author is retained (I
noticed that when you quoted Cameron and I, you did not preface our
material with our names). Trimming out authors' names is yet another
"sin". (When I say "sin", I of course mean "a practice that contradicts
long-established and frequently-advertised conventions".) On the "plus"
side, I do note that you don't have a 12-line e-mail signature. While I
have basically no objections against long signatures (my only objection
is when people top-post their signatures), I know there are people here
who do!