From: “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: ea57806fff2404af16b0c90d777ee351bab9a83d3f4c58574cea6e2225e1275b
Message ID: <199705140219.VAA12003@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Reply To: <v03007805af9ed5fd9760@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-14 02:32:54 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 10:32:54 +0800
From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 10:32:54 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: The Interlinked Cypherpunks Lists? (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <v03007805af9ed5fd9760@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <199705140219.VAA12003@mailhub.amaranth.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In <v03007805af9ed5fd9760@[207.167.93.63]>, on 05/13/97 at 08:50 PM,
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> said:
>The "duplicates" issue has been discussed by others. Even if message IDs
>are not enough to find duplicates--someone reported that the same message
>from algebra and cyberpass have different IDs--I would think that using
>the sender, message title, and date of origin ought to be more than enough
>to spot duplicates.
>Thus, the message "Re: The Interlinked Cypherpunks Lists? (fwd), 4:34 PM
>-0800 5/13/97, Jim Choate" should be unique.
I have been doing some work in this area and IMHO the above is not enough
to properly weed out the duplicates. Not that it woun't catch them but it
will also throw out some non duplicate messages. I would recomend that the
criteria be extended to include the seconds in the time stamp (4:34:25). If
the seconds are not available perhaps generating a hash of the messages
body and compairing would work.
I'm not trying to quibble but I have seen in the past where an author will
post a message and there will be multiple replies to the message. The
author will then reply to the replies and several of these messages will
have the only difference will be the seconds on the time stamp.
Awhile back on one of my e-mail client list their was a disscussion on
wether the time stamp of a message should be generated at the time the
message is composed or at the time the message is sent. We had come to the
conclution that the time the message was composed was the best route to
take. Other e-mail clients may have taken the other route which would
increase the chances on non duplicate messages haveing the same hour:min in
the time stamp.
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0
Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Tag-O-Matic: OS/2: Your brain. Windows: Your brain on drugs.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 ES000000
iQCVAwUBM3kwS49Co1n+aLhhAQGOtQP+JTDtd65amyJ7dO8vzsKMB6Z3s/2XNp3D
cALj/LF2UsNGpky/3FUWoAK4QNnUZkH75yMs8h9Cy8Z5Qe5DZrmvlHW4fEztzrsG
3fQs9H8qZDMIwMDKYM6YF+VmHsQOLy9tS6YLr7z1H4T6HG/cy0Qa6saYYyM9UDl3
JcvmnevnIyU=
=5Rtx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to May 1997
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>”