Am 25.06.2013 15:28, schrieb Timo Sirainen: > Also there are several potential problems.. Like if there are duplicate > Message-ID: headers, > but the body is different, should that be a duplicate?
the answer is simply *yes* because there must not be the same Message-ID's for different messages because the words "single unique message identifier" are pretty clear _______________________________________________________ RFC2822 Though optional, every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field. Furthermore, reply messages SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields as appropriate, as described below. The "Message-ID:" field contains a single unique message identifier. The "References:" and "In-Reply-To:" field each contain one or more unique message identifiers, optionally separated by CFWS. _______________________________________________________ these days "every message SHOULD have a Message-ID:" is outdated we started many years ago to block *any* message missing the header because every sane SMTP implementation adds it if it was missing from the client and so only broken implementations which are mostly spammers would be affected
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
