[Postfixbuch-users] Domain in messages-id umschreiben?

[Andreas Meyer]

Igor Sverkos <igor.sverkos at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 2013-01-28 15:54, Kai Fürstenberg wrote:
> >> Ja?
> > 
> > Ja!
> 
> Danke, hast mich überzeugt (gerade noch einmal RFC 2822 nachgelesen) :)

Einen hab' ich noch, ich zitiere aus der claws-mail-Liste:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:31:30 +0100
> Andreas Meyer <anmeyer at anup.de> wrote:
>   
> > ok, but the MTA would create a Message-ID only if CM wouldn't create
> > one. And as you said in other mail, creating such an ID is
> > obligatory in case of IMAP. So no chance to let the MTA create one.  
> 
> Don't count on it. There are plenty of reasons (some good, some bad)
> for a MTA to rewrite existing Message-ID fields, such as a private
> network using an someone else's domain name. Regardless of the
> validity of that practice (it's ill advised but not prohibited), the
> "illegal" domain name must not be exposed to the public network. This
> entails stripping internal Received headers and rewriting everything
> else to masquerade the domain parts.
> 
> Practices like these are one of the reasons why mail handling
> unofficially adopted Usenet style References headers. References
> headers were formally rolled into mail handling specs with RFC 2822. I
> should hope that CM prefers to use References over In-Reply-To and
> Message-ID.  

Reference headers make it possible to keep a thread together when
there are missing messages, but they don't avoid the need for
Message-IDs. 

und

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:32:56 +0100
> Andreas Meyer <anmeyer at anup.de> wrote: 
>   
> > Is the Message-ID important for the threading and
> > will it work still when the MTA creates one and not CM?  
> 
> Yes and yes.  

If the MTA creates the Message-Id then local copies of sent mail wont
have the header and so wont thread correctly. You can work around this
by BCCing yourself and using that copy instead.


  Andreas