Hi, the archives will quickly tell you the list never was such and thus isn't likely to become one. there's enough value in the list - varying of course by your definition of value. If I were you, I'd stick around the list, perhaps answer a bit less or only when you find things interesting.
As a sidenote, I'm nowhere near surprised by the angst level of senders and recipients alike, created by distrust between mailbox operators and senders. IMHO If the industry would work on better communication facilities, things should gradually cool down, on a long term scale. Regards, Gil Bahat, DevOps/Postmaster, Magisto Ltd. On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Michael Wise <michael.w...@microsoft.com> wrote: > No, it doesn't. > > After all, technically Message-ID is an optional field. > I bitch and moan about that, but nobody cares... They all end up pointing > to, "SHOULD", and I can't really do anything but :'( > > And the information is not pertinent. > If this ML is going to become a forum for reporting spam, I'm gone. > > Aloha, > Michael. > -- > Michael J Wise | Microsoft | Spam Analysis | "Your Spam Specimen Has Been > Processed." | Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? > > -----Original Message----- > From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Steve > Freegard > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:33 AM > To: mailop@mailop.org > Subject: Re: [mailop] Microsoft sending multiple Message-ID headers in > password reset links.. > > > On 15/09/15 18:24, Al Iverson via > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=mailop.org&data=01%7c01%7cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7c014eb44783c04c70154808d2bdfd28d0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=iUlvmPaHW9GC7kLBrxjNx0ssuXy8JD5nGgnneQ%2bZV2I%3d > wrote: > > Is this truly having an immediate negative impact operationally? It > > seems like this could be feedback you could give them directly, > > offlist, without having to share it with the rest of us. > > > > > > Very funny. Feedback to where? Their 1st line support wouldn't have a > clue what to do with that. > > I'm sure that plenty of us check RFC validity (e.g. there shouldn't be > more than one Message-Id header), so it's pretty pertinent information. > > I'm sure it's causing them issues with deliverability because of it. > > Regards, > Steve. > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fchilli.nosignal.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fmailop&data=01%7c01%7cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7c014eb44783c04c70154808d2bdfd28d0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=nG6dlE9YS5zm9Ei7ERHdt%2b7AQj9S5YRtdilQ%2fgKgIzs%3d > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
