You are wrong. I will quote from the standard when I get back to my desk. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 17:17, Bill Cole <sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > On 1 Jan 2018, at 3:54 (-0500), Rupert Gallagher wrote: > We reject anything > whose mid does not include the fqdn or address > literal of their sending > server. We do this because the RFC says > explicitly that the mid *MUST* have > those features. This is a blatant falsehood. Relevant RFCs: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.4 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-3.6.4 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822#section-4.6 The only "MUST" in regard to > MID content in any of those is uniqueness. Use of a domain identifier is > merely RECOMMENDED. Beyond that, it is *IMPOSSIBLE* for a receiving system to > reliably determine whether the right-hand part of a MID is a valid host or > domain identifier for the generator of the MID. -- Bill Cole > b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many > *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Currently Seeking Steady Work: > https://linkedin.com/in/billcole
