Re: "changed" field should be deleted

[Joe Abley <]

On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Joe Abley wrote:

> 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...

Actually, thinking about it, why is the changed field "id" an e-mail
address at all? Given that most (all?) records are protected to some
degree by maintainer fields, surely anything good enough to identify the
changer to his fellow maintainers would do?

A quick fix might be to expunge all text immediately following the "@" in
the changed fields of current records? Or perhaps simply return the
records in response to queries with the changed fields munged in a similar
way?


Joe

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