"changed" field should be deleted
- Previous message (by thread): "changed" field should be deleted
- Next message (by thread): "changed" field should be deleted
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Joe Abley
jabley at clear.co.nz
Fri Jun 5 16:30:51 CEST 1998
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 at clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/
- Previous message (by thread): "changed" field should be deleted
- Next message (by thread): "changed" field should be deleted
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]