On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Anders Norrbring wrote: > So, it's a "feature" in my Outlook 2003 to *not* include the Message-Id > header.. Jesus!
Well, let me through another little twist in this. Per section 3.6.4 of RFC 2822, a Message-ID field is not required. "Though optional, every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field." http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt Section 1.2.1 refers to the definition of "SHOULD" found in #3 RFC 2119 as: 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. Ya'll can debate the purpose, praticality, wording, and meaning among that yourselves. I just wanted to point that out. Personally I've configured Sendmail to reject messages with syntactically incorrect msg-id fields. If a Message-ID is present, it's format is strictly defined. When I implemented the msg-id check I used to catch a lot of mass mailers that were poorly written. That was a few years ago. Now it catches well under 10k messages per week. My $.02 to the thread, Justin
