On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Joe Abley wrote:
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...
Actually, thinking about it, why is the changed field "id" an e-mail address at all? Given that most (all?) records are protected to some degree by maintainer fields, surely anything good enough to identify the changer to his fellow maintainers would do? A quick fix might be to expunge all text immediately following the "@" in the changed fields of current records? Or perhaps simply return the records in response to queries with the changed fields munged in a similar way? Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley@clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/