> On Mar 19, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Rob Nagler <[email protected]> wrote: > > Our mail software drops messages that have missing Message-IDs. However, it > seems that sites like etrade.com and authorize.net have started sending > emails without Message-ID fields. We also have a legitimate bounce from > [email protected] without one. There also seems to be a Samsung > Galaxy MUA that is troublesome (not sure why the MTA doesn't add one...).
There've always been a scattering of sources of legitimate email that don't have message-id, but I'm a bit surprised to see etrade and authorize.net doing that. I wonder if there's a common vendor that has a problem? > > It seems Message-ID is a "should" field so our software shouldn't require it. > However, many mailers and spam filters treat Message-IDs as "must". We'll > probably just add one, because some of our users are starting to get > frustrated with mails getting dropped. Yup. > > Is adding a Message-ID field a reasonable idea? Alternative suggestions? Accepting and delivering mail without a message-id that otherwise looks likely to be wanted is a good idea. Adding a message-id to avoid nasty edge cases in MUAs you deliver it to is a good idea, if it's not too painful to do. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
