Why does MS rename postfix queue IDs?

[Mike Jakubik]

Glenn Steen wrote:
> On 02/04/06, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 02/04/06, Mike Jakubik <mikej at rogers.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> So, as the topic says, why does MS rename postfix queue IDs? Whats is
>>> the reason for this?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Apr  2 15:34:01 fbsd postfix/smtpd[18878]: 1EE3E2B2036:
>>> client=localhost[127.0.0.1]
>>> Apr  2 15:34:01 fbsd postfix/cleanup[18879]: 1EE3E2B2036: hold: header
>>> Received:
>>> ...
>>> Apr  2 15:34:04 fbsd MailScanner[17694]: Requeue: 1EE3E2B2036.F1395 to
>>> F39462B2043
>>> --
>>>
>>> Why add the .##### to the ID? Also, is it really necessary to change the
>>> ID when re queuing the message?
>>>       
>> This is a bit of a FAQ it seems, for the postfix implementation... I
>> noticed that with MW and PF, since PF _will reuse queue IDs_, that I
>> got a rather disturbing amount of duplicates in my database....
>> (Could've been any database logging too, or even a script calculating
>> things based on the queue ID. Any such system was bound to have a fair
>> amount of errors, particularly if you employ a "less than simplistic
>> partitioning scheme", since the amount of continuous i-node
>> consumption will play a role too. I had var on its own partition, so
>> got hit pretty bad) ... I badgered first Steve for a fix, then
>> Jules... Who was gracious enough to oblige.
>>
>> As mentioned, the whole problem is that the queue ID will be reused,
>> since it is calculated from the i-node and the present microsecond...
>> Sounds rather random, but simply isn't "random enough" (as Jules
>> comment in the code goes:).... Even in some rather common "standard
>> setups" you _will_ be bit by this.
>>
>> Jules solution (to manage some extra randomness, tagged on behind a
>> very "scriptabe"/"ignorable" <dot><five hex digits> is purely
>> briliant. And no, it should stay, no matter what;-).
>>
>>     
> (Replying to myself.... Sigh:-)
> About the requeueing bit, that is necessary, yes. "man postsuper"
> tells a lot about the "hoary" details of how PF really works:-).
>   

Thats for the detailed explanation. In this case i agree with you, 
things should stay the same. Do you think it is safe to assume that a 
logged msg id in a db will not be duplicated, say over a span of 3 
years? I think one should probably still refer to records by record id, 
not msg id, just to be safe...