Hi Dave, > -----Original Message----- > From: Yorkshire Dave
> 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. Agreed. Uniqueness is *guaranteed* by the host. The examples are listed as: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think the problem lies in that this is an optional field. Seems like many people offer an interpretation to justify as to how they want to use it - me included. I would at least like to see SHOST in the Message-Id. I would like to see SHOST in the first Received line. And I would like to see hostnames configured as host.some.domain. After that I would like world peace followed by a great party. :) The recommendation you indicate also screams at the reader that it is "RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some domain identifier (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that the generator of the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness of the left hand side within the scope of that domain." In other areas, recommendations this strong are taken as "one must do this". --Larry ------------------------------------------------------- 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
