Magnus,
* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> > > It would make the URLs actually short, but as mentioned upthread, that
> > > wouldn't work at all if offline. So it'd be a tradeoff between those, but
> > > so are pretty much all other options that don't include the full
> > message-id.
> >
> > This is a bit of a crazy idea, but in the new list system, couldn't we
> > add a header which includes "our" surrogate message-id? Or possibly the
> > entire URL to the message, and maybe the URL for the entire thread?
>
> I'd rather not tie those systems in that tightly. I think they are much
> better off being de-coupled.
I get that, but...
> That said, what we could do is invent our own "id". We could either use a
> separate surrogate key, or we could do the sha-1 hash of the messageid. And
> stick that in a header, which could then be searched for both locally and
> remotely.
Yeah, that's a good thought too. I think we'd need to use a SHA1 to
avoid collisions which means that it'll be a bit longer than if we used
an actual ID, but it shouldn't be *too* long.
Thanks!
Stephen