Ken Hornstein <k...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> 4) Some people, for reasons I would classify as "vague", prefer to >>> generate their Message-IDs locally so their saved copy of the >>> message has the Message-ID in it. >> >> The reason you state seems precise rather than vague.
> I mean, that's not a reason in my thinking? Like, WHY do people > want that? That's where things get vague when this came up before. Because, when my message aren't getting through your spam filter, I can refer to the message-Id from my outbox, as a thing you can grep your logs for. (or have your ISP do that) I've also had various ideas about making the message-ID cryptographically strong such that I could recognize when message-ID were really made by me or not. This would help with identifying bounce messages which were really the result of things I sent, vs things where I was impersonated. I think DKIM makes this need obsolete. > FWIW, I took a quick look at the MTAs Postfix and Sendmail; Postfix does > not seem to have any Message-ID-specific configuration knobs, it hardcodes > adding a Message-ID based on it's idea of the local hostname. Sendmail, > yes, it looks like you could change it if you really want to; it also > defaults to something based on the local hostname. I am personally > skeptical that people actually configure this. gethostname() is not the same as what you said we were doing, which takes a trip through /etc/hosts. > My personal feeling is that the people who (a) care about generating a > local Message-ID, and (b) actually care WHAT appears right of the '@' > either need to configure their system appropriately or write code to > change nmh behavior. I'm fine with that. I think that gethostname() is enough.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature