On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:44, Larry Gilson wrote: > Dave, > > Thanks for your input. I have a better understanding now and agree with > you. I was headed down the wrong road. > > It would be nice to have an @foo.localdomain format. That could be faked > too just like every other header field. It would also be difficult to > expect every day dial-up/broadband users to configure their hosts correctly. > I guess I don't really care if the Message-Id is in a @foo.localdomain > format. It should be sufficient to tie "Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" > to the first Received line. But even that is a shaky check. Message-Id > could be a good integrity check if the standard was adhered to better. > > Thanks again Dave! > > Regards, > Larry
I'm not sure that having an @foo or @foo.localdomain message-id actually breaks any standards, although it may bend them slightly. RFC822/2822 seem to refer mainly to the uniqueness of the message-id. RFC2822(3.6.4) recommends using the domain name, domain literal ip address, or some domain identifier as a method of achieving uniqueness. -- Yorkshire Dave -- Scanned by MailScanner at wot.no-ip.com ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
