On 2026-05-31 07:09:07 [+0800], Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: … > universally appreciated by our users. I'd be interested in others' > opinions. … > > I removed the time. I don't see the value of including the time, it's > > bulky and reminds me of the passage on Knuth vol 2 where he "attempted > > to create a fantastically good", etc. The best protection against > > clashing message-ids is IMO to spend the entire length on high-entropy > > randomness and avoid low-entropy components like the time. If we can > > increase the length, it's IMO better to spend the extra length on more > > entropy. > > This part of the patch is likely to provoke endless discussion. > > I'll kick in my own two cents. I regret removing the verbose date, and if I > could redo it, I would put it back to %Y%02m%02d%02H%02M%02S. It may be > verbose, but several people have since mentioned the usefulness of seeing > the date.
Yes. I personaly ended up with the date plus some random as in %Y%02m%02d%02H%02M%02S.%r%r@%f The date is not private and the "usefulness of seeing the date" comes handy while navigating through an email archive (something like public-inbox for instance). Sebastian
