Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header for Outlook 2003…

Página superior
Eliminar este mensaje
Responder a este mensaje
Autor: Odhiambo G. Washington
Fecha:  
A: exim-users
Asunto: Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header for Outlook 2003(AUTHENTICATED) users
* On 11/10/05 12:00 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:59 -0400, Dean Brooks wrote:
> > In general, it is a bad idea (although I don't believe against spec)
> > to add a missing message-id for messages originating from a foreign
> > source.
>
> It's probably best avoided, I agree -- but it's relatively harmless, and
> it's relatively common. On the other hand, it's definitely more of a
> problem if locally-generated messages are allowed to go out without a
> Message-ID.
>
> Not all messages received by SMTP are 'foreign', and the change to
> Exim's behaviour has been far more effective in causing messages to go
> out without a Message-Id, than it has been in fixing whatever problems
> you might see if you add one when you didn't need to.
>
> I suppose it would help if we at least added 'control = submission' to
> the default config file for certain classes of incoming mail....
>
> --- src/configure.default    11 Oct 2005 09:30:41 -0000    1.4
> +++ src/configure.default    11 Oct 2005 10:01:14 -0000
> @@ -320,6 +320,7 @@ acl_check_rcpt:
>    # friends, and if they get onto a black list, it is a mistake.

>
>    accept  hosts         = +relay_from_hosts
> +          control       = submission

>
>    # Accept if the message arrived over an authenticated connection, from
>    # any host. Again, these messages are usually from MUAs, so recipient
> @@ -327,6 +328,7 @@ acl_check_rcpt:
>    # tests.

>
>    accept  authenticated = *
> +          control       = submission

>
>    #############################################################################
>    # There are no default checks on DNS black lists because the domains that



Just so that I may relate this to my situation, I need some small bits
of clarification.

I have in my +relay_from_hosts a big list of servers using "thishost" as
a smart host. Typical ISP setup. In this case, not all hosts are MuA,
yes?

Secondly, I also have several clients on ADSL, who again use "thishost"
as a relay. They are either MuAs or fully fledged servers and they
authenticate before submitting their mails for relay.

Does a host submitting an e-mail for relay behave much like a MuA?


        cheers
       - wash 
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
Odhiambo Washington                    . WANANCHI ONLINE LTD (Nairobi, KE)  |
wash () WANANCHI ! com            . 1ere Etage, Loita Hse, Loita St.,  |
GSM: (+254) 722 743 223            . # 10286, 00100 NAIROBI             |
GSM: (+254) 733 744 121            . (+254) 020 313 985 - 9             |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
"Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!"  
                         --from a /. post