On 1 Aug 2020, at 8:58, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
Two well known companies in my country persist in making the mistake
of writing their mid with a non-public fqdn, violating the rfc.
As Ralph says, that is not a violation of any RFC. There is no "MUST"
condition in 5322 or its 2 most recent predecessors referencing the use
of or resolvability of a domain in the RHS of a Message-ID. A domain is
RECOMMENDED, but there's no mention of its public resolvability
It has been so for the past three years, with me sending detailed,
manually written error messages to their painstakingly collected admin
addresses. Their answer is that everybody else accepts their invalid
mid, and their servers are enterprise ibm / microsoft shitware that
they are unwilling to fix. Since we get a lot of their emails, I
decided to scale up their problem. There are many blacklists, and I
have no intention to go through each idiosyncratic procedure.
Is there an ombusdman that superintends the major blacklists and
enforces rfc compliance through them?
Of course there isn't. If there was someone who could tell DNSBL
operators what addresses to list or not list, there wouldn't be hundreds
of independent DNSBLs.
Also, the idea that RFC compliance is something that can or should be
"enforced" is entirely inconsistent with the basic principles of what
RFCs are. They are documentation, not law.
--
Bill Cole
[email protected] or [email protected]
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not For Hire (currently)
