From: Paul Haldane (Paul.Haldane@newcastle.ac.uk)
Date: Thu May 06 1999 - 04:35:01 CDT
On Wed, 5 May 1999, John Finlay wrote:
> Paul Haldane wrote:
....
> But how can you tell which one has the broken duplicate and which is the OK
> duplicate? Seems like you'd have to keep both with the duplicate msgid and try to
> separate by subject for replies.
I don't think that (at this stage) we should go overboard on complicated
solutions to this problem.
It should only affect a small number of messages (if you're getting
many duplicate msgids then you probably want to work on fixing that :->. I
realise that this often isn't under your control, and we have to be
prepared to deal with reality as opposed to what the RFC says, but the
bottom line is that there should be a 1 to 1 correspondence between mail
messages and msgids).
At the moment hypermail's data structures/logic assume a 1:1 msgid:message
correspondence (at least that's my understanding) so we _don't_ want to
store two messages with the same msgid.
I think the bext thing for the moment is to (at the user's choice) either
dump duplicates (with an error message - allowing the user to fix things
by hand) or do a simplistic replacement of any duplicate msgids with
unique hypermail-generated ones (with a warning so that the user knows
what's happening). This _will_ mean that replies to the second message
with the dup. msgid will be attached to the thread of the first message
with that msgid.
John's suggestion of using the subject lines to distinguish between the
two threads would work, but this is probably too much effort _at this
stage_ if you're only seeing a small number of dupes.
Paul