On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 06:30:35PM +0000, Ian P. Christian wrote: > > If the message was outright rejected because of lack of an FQDN in the > > Message-ID, I wouldn't say that's /wrong/, but I would say it's inadvisable. > > I'd like to draw attention to your message-id here: > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Which is why rejection on that basis is inadvisable, IMO. > As far as I can tell, there is no exim option to replace message-id's > anyway, I understand it will add them if they are missing but that is > not the case here. As it happens I'm currently trying to concoct a recipe for rewriting Message IDs - not to make them more FQDN-ish, but to make them less spammer-harvestable. Thunderbird (and other MUAs too for all I know) generates Message IDs that end in "@<domain of your email address>", which spammers like to then treat as email addresses. -- Dave Evans Power Internet PGP key: http://powernet.co.uk/~davide/pgpkey
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
