Any more opinion on this issue? Stefano
Stefano Bagnara ha scritto: > Martijn Brinkers ha scritto: >>>> 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 > > So it seems both Exchange and Cyrus IMAP (optionally!!) suppress > messages with duplicated Message-IDs ONLY when the envelope recipient is > also the same. > > I'd like to have a pratical mailet configuration example that duplicate > a message change one of the messages content and deliver both messages > to the same recipient and this is a needed behaviour. > > If no one can provide an use case (I want to see the mailet > configuration we are talking about!) then I think we should simply fix > the bug and ignore this minor issue with the compliant behaviour. > > Stefano > >> 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] >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
