Re: [Exim] Ignoring bounce messages to alias - How?

>To: a.flavell@???
>From: Tony Finch <dot@???>
>Cc: exim-users@???
>Subject: Re: [Exim] Ignoring bounce messages to alias - How?
>Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:38:53 +0000
>
>"Alan J. Flavell" <a.flavell@???> wrote:
>>
>>Hmmm. If the _server_ has to provide a message-id, then all is not
>>well, in my opinion: a decent mail _client_ (MUA) would have provided
>>one already. I'd go so far as to say that lack of a client-provided
>>message-id deserves to be spam-rated.
>
>MUAs are increasingly not adding their own message IDs, especially
>recent M$ MUAs.

Why am I not surprised :-(

>It's a reasonable thing to rely on the MTA to do if you are doing
>message submission.

RFC2822, section 3.6, sez that only the Date and originator
address fields (From, Sender etc) are required. Section 3.6.4,
Identification fields, sez that the Message-ID field *SHOULD* be
present.

So the Message-ID field isn't mandatory. Presumably this is why
recent versions of exim don't add one if one isn't there. It can be
argued that it's undue interference if the MTA adds this header
when it isn't mandatory.