On 9/21/21 7:09 AM, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
An unknown MUA (user agent header removed by sender) writes its Message-IDs as <omissis@[IPv6::ffff:193.168.1.30]>.
Ew.
Is the header syntactically corrext?
After looking at EBNF from RFC 5322 for 90 seconds, I /think/ that it is using obs-id-right syntax. -- I say think because I see the left and right square brackets are part of domain-literal, which chains up to obs-id-right which itself chains up to message-id. But I stopped at the dtext and didn't check to see if the colon character is allowed or not.
A custom SpamAssassin rule added a penalty for syntax error, and another for using a non-public address.
I get the penalty for the syntax error. But why the penalty for using non-public addresses* in a Message-ID: string?I was not aware that Message-ID had any requirements that the content had to mean anything beyond being syntactically correct. As such I would expect private / non-globally routed content to be allowed. After all, isn't the purpose of the Message-ID to be a universally unique identifier? If so, why does it matter what the contents is as long as it's syntactically correct? What am I missing?
-- Grant. . . . unix || die
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
