On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2003-11-13 at 15:44 +0000, Philip Hazel wrote:
> > OK. This is a complete mess.
>
> Given the amount of work which went into RFC2822, the amount of voices
> all being heard, etc, I'm amazed at how _little_ a mess it is.
I really meant that the message was a mess...
> So would I. Perhaps the code should be left in for the "exim -t" case,
> and _only_ then?
Indeed.
> On a related note, is it worth considering an option to either use a
> different format Message-Id: header when putting one on a mail received
> via SMTP or to just not add one? Preferably done as a source-host ACL,
> always on for non-SMTP injection?
See message_id_header_domain and message_id_header_text. Do you need
more than they provide?
> Message-Id: at all, or something like:
> <normal-text.NORECEIVEDMSGID@???>
Should be able to do that already...
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
