On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 04:16:02PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > > > On the other hand, for well-formed headers, the
> > > > comment is not part of the message-id: for example:
> > > >
> > > > 2008-11-06T01:11:19-0500 amnesiac postfix/cleanup[13756]:
> > > > AE620EF8001:
> > > > message-id=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (added by [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > > >
> > > > Should Postfix make any effort to log the above message differently?
> > >
> > > How would one decide that a (message-id) header is not mangled?
> > > This would require parsing the string, counting the "address"
> > > tokens, and if there is only one "address" token, use that as the
> > > logged message ID, otherwise log the entire original string.
> >
> > Real-life examples include:
> >
> > Message-Id: News_03/11/2008 16:11:15_PR Newswire Brasil<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Message-ID: <42M0XSEC17ENNJN27.1103.753798 @lowbehold.com>
> > Message-ID: <2008-11-07 10:43:57 TheSystem@>
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] & Cloppenburg Website>
> > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> >
> > So the "address" token parser would have to be fairly "liberal".
>
> I'm not sure if cosmetic concerns about Message-ID logging alone
> would justify the implementation of another RFC822 parser.
The concerns are not entirely cosmetic, as some folks are contemplating
pulling logs into structured databases, and indexing on message-id,
queue-id, and so on. Do we want the log parsers to parse the raw header
value, or should we try to "help" by trimming comments, leaving just
the "real" message-id?
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
