From: Cami (no email)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 04:48:55 EDT
>>>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
This is definately *NOT* true.. There are far too many legit mails
to be whitelisted..
> 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.
You will lose/reject legimate mail by blocking mail with no Message-ID..
Cami
|
|
|