Re: "changed" field should be deleted

[Daniel Karrenberg <]

  > Joe Abley jabley@localhost writes:
  > 
  > 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...

Can we limit the discussion to the quick fix of hiding
the changed field for standard queries. 
The re-design of the audit trail has been discussed before and
should be considered thoroughly based on a proposal covering
all aspects.

Daniel