On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 03:03, Larry Gilson wrote: > 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.
I'm trying to get a grip on the concept here, whereabouts in the received line do you want to see it? In an authoritative position or just anywhere like in the HELO? > And I would like to see > hostnames configured as host.some.domain. If you always need that to be a host.domain which you can resolve back to the ip address of the originating machine, you've excluded NAT altogether. If you don't need it to resolve then all you're asking for is that the pile of junk characters have a dot in them. > After that I would like world > peace followed by a great party. :) I'll go for those two options any time :) > > 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". > Oh yes I know RECOMMENDED is only a shave away from MUST, but the whole section is focused upon uniqueness rather than provision of some sort of connection audit trail. If you interpret it as an absolute MUST then you're saying anything without its own exclusive host.registered-domain MUST NOT generate a message-id, which seems wrong to me. Maybe this is why it doesn't actually say MUST, the RFC isn't shy about saying MUST in other places. I take RECOMMENDED to mean that deviating from the recommendation requires understanding the reason for the recommendation and trying to closely follow the logic behind it. > > --Larry > -- 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
