Re: "changed" field should be deleted

[Joe Abley <]

On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Michael van Elst wrote:

> Hiding the changed: lines definitely breaks every system that keeps
> _copies_ of the entries because it is impossible to update entries
> from these copies without trashing the existing entries.
> 
> And if you make the changed: line availables optionally then those
> who want to use addresses will quickly figure out how to get them.

Perhaps the displayed/retrieved version of the "changed" field should
include a message-id instead of the e-mail address? These are supposed to
be unique, and usually contain a hostname/FQDN that is probably sufficient
to identify the updater.

I am assuming that the vast majority of people make updates using
e-mail...


Joe

--
Joe Abley jabley@localhost      Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008
Network Architect, CLEAR Net                      http://www.clear.net.nz/