From: Alex van den Bogaerdt (no email)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 04:39:37 EDT
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 02:55:27AM +0200, Cami wrote:
> > So therefore I stand by my claim that adding a message-id is wrong. In
> > the message itself I stated that opinions and setups may differ so the
> > process should be configurable. I regret if my wordings are misinterpreted
> > however I have done my homework.
>
> Just so i make my point known, the Message-ID bit is not really an
> issue for me.. Its the From:/To: fields that cause the headaches..
Similar over here. For now, I think a missing message-id is a clear
sign of unwanted email; the exceptions can be whitelisted. If such
a message is presented to me I hate to waste resources. Malformed
From/To and missing message-id seems to go hand in hand.
Therefore I tried to filter on missing header-ids. No go. header_checks
are done _before_ postfix adds the message-id. Even if this would be done
the other way around one cannot simply reject all messages with a
message-id using the local hostname.
cheers,
Alex
-- I ask you to respect any "Reply-To" and "Mail-Follow-Up" headers. If you reply to me off-list, you'd better tell me you're doing so. If you don't, and if I reply to the list, that's your problem, not mine.
|
|
|