From: Gunter O. <G.O...@po...> - 2006-11-07 18:30:27
|
Am Dienstag, 7. November 2006 17:16 schrieb Holger Krull: > > Hu, I'd rather like to avoid that - the old server is rather slow, > But computers do work at night without supervisor... Yes, but the last sync ran several days. I could have done that again if=20 it would have been really neccessary, but it would still have been a bit=20 annoying. > >> Appending has no advantage over hashing. Just makes comparison > > Well, it'd make the pretty unlikely collision even more unlikely, as > That doesn't account for a missing message id, does it? Mh, it does, as in this case there would still be the md5 hashes which=20 would distinguish the mails, so in this case there would be no difference=20 to the status quo. > And md5 hash collision on a string like a typical (existing) message id > is "practically impossible" i believe. Yes, it probably is, and I'm also trying md5 message identification right=20 now. Still I'm not sure if I'd gve guarantees that a collision will never=20 ever happen if mailsync is used a lot and on large mail stores. However=20 if I really want this third "dual" message identification algorithm I can=20 write a patch, so I'll just shut up on this topic for now. ;) Greetings, Gunter =2D-=20 *** Powered by AudioScrobbler --> http://www.last.fm/user/Interneci/ *** 19:14 | Tristania - Lethean River 19:08 | Tristania - Opus Relinque 19:01 | Tristania - A Sequel of Decay 18:54 | Tristania - Aphelion *** PGP-Verschl=FCsselung bei eMails erw=FCnscht :-) *** PGP: 0x1128F25F *** |