Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Dmitry Kurochkin > <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Felipe. >> >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Running "notmuch compose" more than once within a second would result in >>>> identical message ids for the messages, which is not a good idea. That's >>>> not likely in interactive use, but the notmuch cli is highly scriptable, >>>> so someone is bound to hit this. >>>> >>>> Some paranoid might also be worried about "leaking" the time you run >>>> "notmuch compose"... which may be different from the actual time you >>>> send the message. >>> >>> It's still better than the current situation; nothing. In any case, >>> people that have not needed this would not be affected; their UI would >>> override the Message-ID. >>> >> >> I disagree. If notmuch CLI generates a Message-ID, it must be a good >> one. Otherwise we make users falsely believe that they do have a proper >> Message-ID while in fact they do not. And that would bite them sooner >> or later. > > And then they'll report it, and we would fix it. > > Anyway, everything comes from a patch, so, do you have a patch, > pseudo-code, or even a suggestion? > A patch needs some positive reviews to be accepted. Replying to comments with "make a better patch" may not be the best strategy for getting your patches accepted. I do not have a patch. As for a suggestion, I would start with some googling. If you did that, you would probably find the gmime function kindly pointed out by Jani. Regards, Dmitry > -- > Felipe Contreras