Title: Message
Hi
Scott:
Shouldn't this message ID cause a "BADHEADERS"
failure:
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
since
"athlon" is not guaranteed to be a unique occurrence (because it's not a
FQDN)?
-Original Message-
Received:
from athlon [208.169.85.246] by hm-software.com
Shouldn't this message ID cause a BADHEADERS failure:
Message-ID:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
since athlon is not guaranteed to be a unique occurrence (because it's
not a FQDN)?
Technically, it should. :)
We used to have the BADHEADERS test check for this. However, the
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Non-unique MessageID vs. BADHEADERS ?
Shouldn't this message ID cause a BADHEADERS failure:
Message-ID:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
n
since athlon is not guaranteed to be a unique occurrence (because
it's
not a FQDN)?
Technically
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Non-unique MessageID vs. BADHEADERS ?
So the HELOBOGUS will apply the same logic and NO longer check for
BOGUS
host names?
If not - then why doesn't the same logic apply
They were just talking about this on the Postfix list today, as well.
Wietse Venema is the developer of Postfix. Attached is a question regarding
the Message ID, and his response. Interesting that this issue came up on
both lists today.
[Message from the Postfix list:]
The Message-ID header
