On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> OK. Fair enough. I'm convinced that these headers should be added.
Committed in r1449592 without the revision on the Message-ID. In the
case of lock events no revision is available. In the case of revprop
property changes it's not uniqu
Peelman, Nick wrote on Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 13:59:59 -0500:
> Using both sendmail and an internal SMTP server (postfix), neither the
> date nor message ID would get inserted; that said, the foreign MTA
> would spawn a message-ID and a date.
>
OK. Fair enough. I'm convinced that these headers s
Using both sendmail and an internal SMTP server (postfix), neither the date nor
message ID would get inserted; that said, the foreign MTA would spawn a
message-ID and a date.
However:
As per RFC2822, the Date field is one of only two required fields for a valid
message; relying on the MTA to
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Peelman, Nick wrote on Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 13:13:28 -0500:
>> Adds a Date header and a Message-ID with the revision property embedded at
>> the end.
>
> Why is this necessary? Can you describe a setup in which Date or
> Message-ID are not
Peelman, Nick wrote on Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 13:13:28 -0500:
> Adds a Date header and a Message-ID with the revision property embedded at
> the end.
Why is this necessary? Can you describe a setup in which Date or
Message-ID are not added? (I assume usually the MTA would add them if
they're miss
5 matches
Mail list logo