> > Exchange 2007? Is it Exchange 2007 Server or does Exchange identify also > > a MUA product? I'd like to have at least another example. I wouldn't go > > RFC uncompliant to follow M$ proprietary solutions. If Exchange 2007 is > > I don't think RFC2888 says something about dropping duplicate > message-id's so it's probably up to the implementation to handle (or not > handle) this. Exchange filters it like this: > > http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/07/14/183132.aspx
Cyrus IMAP seems to do something similar Duplicate Delivery Suppression A message is considered a duplicate if two copies of a message with the same message-id and the same envelope receipient are received. Cyrus uses the duplicate delivery database to hold this information, and it looks approximately 3 days back in the default install. http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/imapd/overview.html#duplicate Like I said, I'm not saying this patch should not be applied I just wanted to point out the possible gotchas Martijn On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 16:38 +0200, Martijn Brinkers wrote: > > Can you name some of "Most mail clients"? In the past 10 years I used > > many different MUAs and I'm sure I've always been subscribed to at least > > one list with 2 different accounts receiving each list messages at least > > twice with the same Message-ID: in all of the MUAs I used I received > > each message twice with no unexpected "filtering" by the MUA (Agent, > > Outlook 2000, Outlook 2003, Outlook Express, Eudora don't remember the > > versions, Thunderbird since 1.0 to current, Sylpheed Claws, Gmail, The > > Bat, MailWarrior, and probably others I forgot). > > You are right I should have been more precise on this. I have > experienced this behavior with Outlook and Exchange 2003 some time ago > while testing a James based application. It took me some time to > understand why I did not receive some test messages until I found out > that Exchange filtered on duplicate message-id's. > I was under the impression that Evolution did the same but I just tested > it and it seems that I receive the duplicate messages. So you are > probably right in that not all clients (most?) filter in message-id. I'm > sorry for that. > Still, Exchange (I tested it some time ago with Exchange 2003) did > filtered on message-id's. > > > > AddFooter is one of that cases that are fixed by this patch. > > Adding a footer SHOULD NOT change the message-id. > > AddFooter was just an example of a mailet that modified the source message. > I did not say that in this particular example (ie. AddFooter mailet) the > message-id > should be different after adding the footer. > > My point is that you do not know what kind of mailets other James users have > created. > > > > Exchange 2007? Is it Exchange 2007 Server or does Exchange identify also > > a MUA product? I'd like to have at least another example. I wouldn't go > > RFC uncompliant to follow M$ proprietary solutions. If Exchange 2007 is > > I don't think RFC2888 says something about dropping duplicate > message-id's so it's probably up to the implementation to handle (or not > handle) this. Exchange filters it like this: > > http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/07/14/183132.aspx > > > > In any way what Exchange 2007 does (from my reading) is to suppress > > messages having the same Message-ID and destinated to the same > > Recipient. > > You are right in that it only affects messages being sent to the same > recipient but > it still is a change of behavior that can change some behavior for some > existing mailets. > > Personally I don't care if this patch is applied or not because I understand > the possible > implications but I just wanted to discuss the possible pitfalls with this > patch. > > Personally I think the default behavior should be to change the message-id > when the > message has been changed unless you know that the changes did not change the > message > in such a way that a new message-id is required. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
