From: Alex van den Bogaerdt (no email)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 05:13:24 EDT
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 08:39:16PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alex van den Bogaerdt:
> > As far as I can tell:
> > - mail without a message-id is spam or virus, perhaps a few exceptions
>
> I added a missing message ID warning and found that it would drop
> legitimate SMTP mail that was forwarded by qmail. That was enough of
> an exeption for me to not provide this as a spam blocking feature.
That may be so, but I, in my setup, have not seen legitimate messages
without message-id as far as I can remember . That doesn't mean there
won't be any but it does mean I _probably_ be better of whitelisting
some exceptions and blocking the rest, ignoring the fact that there
is collateral damage.
My message also tries to discuss altering From and To. This is
discussed in rfc2821 as well, together with message-id.
I don't know qmail so there's a good chance that the following is
at least partially incorrect:
When qmail is used to inject mail, it uses "idhost" to generate
a message-Id. In other words: initial submission by qmail does
provide a message-id.
I take your word for it that qmail does forward mail without adding
a message-Id. Also, I've read that bounces from qmail do not contain
a message-Id.
> There has to be a better reason than being strict to the letter of
> some RFC that was written when Postfix already existed.
I'm not going over every RFC just to pester you. I'm looking at this
issue (message-id _and_ From/To) for many moons now and cannot reliably
work around it. Other people have problems with it as well.
Real people, real problem. And an RFC that IMHO supports my concerns.
quoting myself:
> I understand that this subject is controversial, so it should be
> configurable.
I'm not going to quote an entire post so if you want to comment on
_what_ I say in stead of _how_ I say it, please have another look
at my first post in this thread.
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.
|
|
|