On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Bill Hacker wrote:
> From: Bill Hacker <wbh@???>
> To: exim <exim-users@???>
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:36:52 +0800
> Subject: [exim] Missing message-id, demon.net
...
> grepping the most recent 27,513 message to this list (all that I
> have on my PowerBook) does not turn up anything on the matter of
> message-id. (or demon.co.uk // demon.net)
We had a thread on this earlier this month:
10 Oct 05 Matt Sealey [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
10 Oct 05 Dennis Davis Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
10 Oct 05 David Woodhouse Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
10 Oct 05 Matt Sealey RE: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
10 Oct 05 David Woodhouse RE: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
10 Oct 05 Dean Brooks Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
11 Oct 05 David Woodhouse Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
11 Oct 05 Philip Hazel Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
11 Oct 05 Adam Funk Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
11 Oct 05 Odhiambo G. Was Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
11 Oct 05 David Woodhouse Re: [exim] Adding missing Message-Id header
(I've truncated the subject line but it concerned Outlook 2003
leaving out the message-id.)
> Are we the 'Lone Ranger in checking for this header?
>
> ... or are 'demon' odd-man-out in omitting the RFC-compliant
> 'message-id'?
I think you'll find the RFC uses SHOULD, rather than MUST. So
omitting the message-id doesn't make the message non-compliant.
--
Dennis Davis, BUCS, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
D.H.Davis@??? Phone: +44 1225 386101
