Ken Hornstein <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 4) Some people, for reasons I would classify as "vague", prefer to >>> generate their Message-IDs locally so their saved copy of the >>> message has the Message-ID in it. >> >> The reason you state seems precise rather than vague.
> I mean, that's not a reason in my thinking? Like, WHY do people
> want that? That's where things get vague when this came up before.
Because, when my message aren't getting through your spam filter, I can refer
to the message-Id from my outbox, as a thing you can grep your logs for.
(or have your ISP do that)
I've also had various ideas about making the message-ID cryptographically
strong such that I could recognize when message-ID were really made by me or
not. This would help with identifying bounce messages which were really the
result of things I sent, vs things where I was impersonated. I think DKIM
makes this need obsolete.
> FWIW, I took a quick look at the MTAs Postfix and Sendmail; Postfix does
> not seem to have any Message-ID-specific configuration knobs, it hardcodes
> adding a Message-ID based on it's idea of the local hostname. Sendmail,
> yes, it looks like you could change it if you really want to; it also
> defaults to something based on the local hostname. I am personally
> skeptical that people actually configure this.
gethostname() is not the same as what you said we were doing, which takes a
trip through /etc/hosts.
> My personal feeling is that the people who (a) care about generating a
> local Message-ID, and (b) actually care WHAT appears right of the '@'
> either need to configure their system appropriately or write code to
> change nmh behavior.
I'm fine with that. I think that gethostname() is enough.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
