Re: Duplicate Message-ID question
Sten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dave Sill writes: > >DS> "message id" does the trick. > > Not any better than 'message-id'. It finds what it should, >but also tosses in extraneous messages (like >http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/03/msg00099.html >- 'id' doesn't even appear as a substring in that message). I'm >guessing that 'id' (and 'message-id') are matching the header field, >which doesn't get displayed. No, the search engine indexes what you see. I suspect it ignores the "id" since it's only two characters. :-( >DS> qmail's message ID's are of the form >DS> timestamp.pid.qmail@hostname. The only way you could get a >DS> duplicate would be if the same process ID is reused twice within >DS> the same second (the resolution of the timestamp) to send >DS> different messages to the same user. > > Are you sure of that? Yes. See the source code for msgidfmt in newfield.c. >It looks like the headers may have been >lost (I should have known better than to leave the 'From ' lines >unaltered), but the lines which would seem to be relevant are: > >Received: (qmail 28582 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2000 02:20:39 - >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > and > >Received: (qmail 28583 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2000 02:20:39 - >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I can see the timestamp in the message ID, but the process IDs >doesn't seem to match up. The process ID in the message ID is that of the process that created the message ID. Since qmail is modular, many different processes may touch a message before it's delivered. It's qmail-inject that calls msgidfmt (indirectly). >DS> One fix would be to increase the resolution of the timestamp to, >DS> say, the millisecond. > > Would that be something that can be changed in the >configuration, or would it require a recompile? It would take a source code change and recompile. Doesn't look too hard, though. -Dave
Re: Duplicate Message-ID question
> Dave Sill writes: DS> Sten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I didn't see anything in the FAQ that seemed to be relevant to >> this, and the ORNL search engine wants to split 'message-id' into >> 'message' and 'id'. DS> "message id" does the trick. Not any better than 'message-id'. It finds what it should, but also tosses in extraneous messages (like http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/03/msg00099.html - 'id' doesn't even appear as a substring in that message). I'm guessing that 'id' (and 'message-id') are matching the header field, which doesn't get displayed. DS> There's paranoia, and there's prudence. :-) Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that I can't do something prudent because of it. ;) >> My question is, is this a known problem with qmail, possibly a >> misconfiguration or something correctable by an upgrade? I'd like >> to be able to tell PayPal more than "Your mailer is doing Bad >> Things.". DS> qmail's message ID's are of the form DS> timestamp.pid.qmail@hostname. The only way you could get a DS> duplicate would be if the same process ID is reused twice within DS> the same second (the resolution of the timestamp) to send DS> different messages to the same user. Are you sure of that? It looks like the headers may have been lost (I should have known better than to leave the 'From ' lines unaltered), but the lines which would seem to be relevant are: Received: (qmail 28582 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2000 02:20:39 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Received: (qmail 28583 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2000 02:20:39 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I can see the timestamp in the message ID, but the process IDs doesn't seem to match up. DS> That appears to be what happened in your case. I take it the DS> messages were different? Most definitely. DS> One fix would be to increase the resolution of the timestamp to, DS> say, the millisecond. Would that be something that can be changed in the configuration, or would it require a recompile? Thanks for your help! -- #include/* Sten Drescher */ [The Internet is] like a library in Resident Evil. - Mark Waid, 23 Aug 2000
Re: Duplicate Message-ID question
Sten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't see anything in the FAQ that seemed to be relevant to >this, and the ORNL search engine wants to split 'message-id' into >'message' and 'id'. "message id" does the trick. > I just received a pair of messages from PayPal, which appears >to be using qmail. I'm fortunate to have received a pair of messages >(headers below), because I use procmail to eliminate duplicate >messages based upon the Message-ID header, which RFC 822 requires to >be unique. However, I'm a paranoid bastard, and shunt all "duplicate" >email to a duplicates folder, rather than sending it to /dev/null, so >I caught the false duplicate. There's paranoia, and there's prudence. :-) >My question is, is this a known problem >with qmail, possibly a misconfiguration or something correctable by an >upgrade? I'd like to be able to tell PayPal more than "Your mailer is >doing Bad Things.". qmail's message ID's are of the form timestamp.pid.qmail@hostname. The only way you could get a duplicate would be if the same process ID is reused twice within the same second (the resolution of the timestamp) to send different messages to the same user. That appears to be what happened in your case. I take it the messages were different? One fix would be to increase the resolution of the timestamp to, say, the millisecond. This is the first case of a duplicate message ID I've heard of under qmail. -Dave