John W. Baxter wrote: >>>> curious about the second: can a message really get to the delivery >>>> point without a Message-ID header? >>> If I remember well, only in submission-mode exim should do some >>> fixups (Message-ID, Date, Sender, ...). >> Yes, I remember setting that option a few years ago on my outgoing >> exim. ISTR (but I could be wrong) that I needed to do it because >> messages were getting rejected by subsequent mail servers for not >> having MIDs. > > [Catching up] > Unfortunately, having a Message-Id: header is still a SHOULD, even in RFC > 5322. So one really ought not to reject based (only) on their lack. It would > be very nice if I could. (And if running a server only for myself, I likely > would, with provision for an exception list.)
My first stop when considering how much of a spammy indicator a metric is, is to check out what the default SpamAssassin score is for it. When SpamAssassin notices a message without a Message-Id header, it *does* note it in the report, but it doesn't actually apply a score. Ie: 0.0 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header I'm assuming that there is a lot of ham out there with missing Message-Id headers, or SpamAssassin would be assigning at least a score of 0.1 for it... Perhaps they put it in the report so it can be used for bayes. -- Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/ -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
