> He seemed to feel that it was up to the MUA to generate the header, > but his response was that with Windows, it is impossible to get a > host/domain name that is appropriate for the header (without > specifically asking the user for another piece of information).
The canonical hostname is accessible from the Win32 API. But he is an awesome programmer, so I'll leave it be. > So a Message-ID: header with a real GUID in it, in the format > "Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" would be unique, even if > "example.com" wasn't involved in the process. I agree, but not all of those MUAs are using a true GUID. So one must assume that they cannot guarantee global uniqueness for the left-hand side; and adding a non-unique hostname doesn't help. Just MO. > Also, note that the Message-ID: header that IMail adds is based on > the "HELO" text that the remote mail client/server sends -- so IMail > (as an MTA) won't have any more unique of a Message-ID: than any of > the mail clients that connect to it. This isn't what RFCs indicate, but even so, a machine's canonical hostname is presumed to be unique--guess the question is whether this is what the MUA sends as the HELO; with janky M$, it's the NetBIOS/unqualified hostname, for example. > Of course, you could argue that IMail should use a local domain name > in the Message-ID: header. Yeah, this is what the RFCs suggest--the "the host on which the message identifier was created." > Then again, I personally feel that a Message-ID: header that is "almost > certainly unique" should be fine. But, that's just my personal opinion. :) Eh, me too. But it's fun to debate. :)) -Sandy Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
