Re: Message-ID, privacy and uniqueness

--LieGMJ651eDBkdVd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 12:58:48PM +0000, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>I think it's clear that we aren't going to increase the amount of=20
>entropy in the localpart. Should we still guard against the hostname=20
>information leak, or just accept that as a non-ideal state of things?

I don't think there is much appetite for tweaking the default=20
message-id format again at this point.  Rene said it best in his reply=20
<[email protected]>:

>People are free to choose whatever they want and set message_id_format.
>Let the default be what it is. I don't see any need to bikeshed this
>topic anymore.

I may consider adding an expando for the *whole* from address, at some=20
point, in one of the two ways I mentioned in the thread.  But won't=20
likely change the default.

--=20
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA

--LieGMJ651eDBkdVd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=r5Er
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LieGMJ651eDBkdVd--