Re: "changed" field should be deleted

Joe Abley <jabley@clear.co.nz> writes:

Perhaps the displayed/retrieved version of the "changed" field should include a message-id instead of the e-mail address? These are supposed to be unique, and usually contain a hostname/FQDN that is probably sufficient to identify the updater.

I am assuming that the vast majority of people make updates using e-mail...

Can we limit the discussion to the quick fix of hiding the changed field for standard queries. The re-design of the audit trail has been discussed before and should be considered thoroughly based on a proposal covering all aspects. Daniel