Marc Patermann a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Bastian Blank schrieb:
>> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>>> This works as I'd expect, but will it break anything else?
>>
>> Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
>> ever touch a message id.
> Not all
Hi,
Bastian Blank schrieb:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
This works as I'd expect, but will it break anything else?
Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
ever touch a message id.
Not all users are dumb. ;)
Sender: I'm mi
Victor Duchovni wrote, at 02/08/2009 03:37 PM:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:08:32PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>
>> No, I was referring to the "Sent" folder, populated by the MUA, either
>> in a local disk or using IMAP.
>
> I know some people clever-enough to set "Sent == Inbox", yes this is not
> very
Victor Duchovni a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:08:32PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>
>> No, I was referring to the "Sent" folder, populated by the MUA, either
>> in a local disk or using IMAP.
>
> I know some people clever-enough to set "Sent == Inbox", yes this is not
> very common.
>
> I perso
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:08:32PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> No, I was referring to the "Sent" folder, populated by the MUA, either
> in a local disk or using IMAP.
I know some people clever-enough to set "Sent == Inbox", yes this is not
very common.
I personally have rules that tag outgoing mail in
M. Fioretti a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 18:22:17 PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>>> I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And
>>> it will break MUA driven thread handling
>> - very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as
>> - received mail even then, MUAs have heur
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 18:22:17 PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> > I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And
> > it will break MUA driven thread handling
>
> - very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as
> - received mail even then, MUAs have heuristics to cope with suc
On Feb 8, 2009, at 1:02 PM, mouss wrote:
Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:22:17PM +0100, mouss wrote:
I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And
it will
break MUA driven thread handling
- very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as
On Feb 8, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Bastian Blank > wrote:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:13:53AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
ever touch a message id.
Do explain how adding/replacing a valid Mess
Victor Duchovni a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:22:17PM +0100, mouss wrote:
>
>>> I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And it will
>>> break MUA driven thread handling
>> - very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as received mail
>> - even then, MUAs
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:22:17PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> > I mean replacing or deleting already set Message-Id headers. And it will
> > break MUA driven thread handling
>
> - very few people put their Sent mail in the same folders as received mail
> - even then, MUAs have heuristics to cope with
mouss wrote:
and if a spam filter blocks/discards/quarantines mail because of this,
it is the filter that should be blamed.
I use this setup for detecting Backscatter. Until now without problems,
but it's difficult to know.
Bastian Blank a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:13:53AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>> Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
>>> ever touch a message id.
>> Do explain how adding/replacing a valid Message-ID only to su
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:13:53AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
> > ever touch a message id.
> Do explain how adding/replacing a valid Message-ID only to submitted mail
> will "break
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > This works as I'd expect, but will it break anything else?
>
> Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
> ever touch a message id.
Do explain how adding/repla
Sahil Tandon a écrit :
> I have been asked to replace the MUA Message-ID of SASL senders with a
> Postfix-generated ID. The Message-ID of incoming mail which arrives via the
> same Postfix instance, but does not originate from a SASL authenticated
> sender, should not be touched. The submission se
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> This works as I'd expect, but will it break anything else?
Yes. It will break the complete mail handling of the client. _Never_
ever touch a message id.
Bastian
--
Fascinating, a totally parochial attitude.
-- Spock
I have been asked to replace the MUA Message-ID of SASL senders with a
Postfix-generated ID. The Message-ID of incoming mail which arrives via the
same Postfix instance, but does not originate from a SASL authenticated
sender, should not be touched. The submission service runs on port 587. Are
t
18 matches
Mail list logo
