Hi Michael,
At 11:44 15-09-2015, Michael Wise 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 :'(
It is recommended to add a "Message-ID"
On 15/09/15 18:24, Al Iverson via mailop.org 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
, 2015 11:33 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org<mailto: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=01%7c01%7cmichael.wise
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:06:31PM +0300, Gil Bahat wrote:
> If I were you, I'd stick around the list, perhaps answer a bit less or only
> when you find things interesting.
…maybe adding a couple of lines to one's killfile(s)…
I think it's vital -- for the mail ecosystem -- that there are
On 15/09/15 19:44, Michael Wise via mailop.org 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 :'(
Yeah - it might say SHOULD, but it's
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Steve Freegard wrote:
>
> On 15/09/15 18:24, Al Iverson via mailop.org wrote:
>>
>> Is this truly having an immediate negative impact operationally? It
>> seems like this could be feedback you could give them directly,
>> offlist, without