Martijn Brinkers ha scritto:
> But what happens with messages that are split into multiple messages (because
> of a matcher)? Do they get the same message-id?
Yes, do you see a problem with this?
It seems this also happen when your MUA sends a message to multiple
recipients on different domains.
The MTA will send the same message to each recipient MDA and they all
will share the same Message-ID, please correct me if you know of MTA
that do alter the Message-ID in this case.
> And what if the message has been changed in such a way that the message is no
> longer similar to the original message? Should it get a new message-id when
> the message content has been changed completely?
A mailet can simply call setHeader('Message-ID', 'xxxx') whener there is
a need to change it.
>From RFC2822:
----
Note: There are many instances when messages are "changed", but those
changes do not constitute a new instantiation of that message, and
therefore the message would not get a new message identifier. For
example, when messages are introduced into the transport system, they
are often prepended with additional header fields such as trace
fields (described in section 3.6.7) and resent fields (described in
section 3.6.6). The addition of such header fields does not change
the identity of the message and therefore the original "Message-ID:"
field is retained. In all cases, it is the meaning that the sender
of the message wishes to convey (i.e., whether this is the same
message or a different message) that determines whether or not the
"Message-ID:" field changes, not any particular syntactic difference
that appears (or does not appear) in the message.
----
Can you provide a use case where a mailet starts from an user-created
message and alter its content to produce something with a different meaning?
If a mailet sends a different message based on the input message it will
usually create a new mimemessage: there is no reason to alter the input
message if you don't have to keep some/most of its content.
Stefano
> Martijn Brinkers
>
> On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 00:31 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just updated my local server to include the patch I proposed in JAMES-875.
>>
>> This basically adds this code to MimeMessageWrapper:
>> -----
>> protected void updateMessageID() throws MessagingException {
>> if (getMessageID() == null) super.updateMessageID();
>> }
>> -------
>>
>> This way my Message-IDs are presereved after Javamail's
>> mimeMessage.saveChanges calls.
>>
>> Most of our mailets are otherwise altering the Message-ID and this can
>> lead to many issues (SpamAssassin score increased, Domain-Key
>> verification failing...).
>>
>> I think this should be applied ASAP to trunk and also backported to 2.3
>> branch.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Stefano
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
