If a sample email arrives from an external source with OUR message-id, we frown upon that. According to the RFC, it's a "SHOULD"... But no email sender in their right mind should emit traffic without a valid, internet-wide-unique Message-Id.
Just makes you look like a spammer. And a word of caution ... don't try and make one that looks JUST LIKE one you see on the internet. Make it YOURS... Safer. For reasons best left as an exercise. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? -----Original Message----- From: mailop <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Heiko Schlittermann via mailop Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 2:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mailop] Missing Message-ID? Rob Nagler <[email protected]> (Mo 19 Mär 2018 21:56:12 CET): .. > 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. > > Is adding a Message-ID field a reasonable idea? Alternative suggestions? We add a the Message-ID on the submission host, if the client is to stupid to do it. A serious mail service provider should take take that all messages leaving his system carry a valid message ID, IMHO. Best regards from Dresden/Germany Viele Grüße aus Dresden Heiko Schlittermann -- SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support - Heiko Schlittermann, Dipl.-Ing. (TU) - {fon,fax}: +49.351.802998{1,3} - gnupg encrypted messages are welcome --------------- key ID: F69376CE - ! key id 7CBF764A and 972EAC9F are revoked since 2015-01 ------------ - _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
