On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 06:30:35PM +0000, Ian P. Christian wrote:
> > If the message was outright rejected because of lack of an FQDN in the
> > Message-ID, I wouldn't say that's /wrong/, but I would say it's inadvisable.
>
> I'd like to draw attention to your message-id here:
>
> Message-ID: <20061125092412.GA13984@whisper>
Which is why rejection on that basis is inadvisable, IMO.
> As far as I can tell, there is no exim option to replace message-id's
> anyway, I understand it will add them if they are missing but that is
> not the case here.
As it happens I'm currently trying to concoct a recipe for rewriting Message
IDs - not to make them more FQDN-ish, but to make them less
spammer-harvestable. Thunderbird (and other MUAs too for all I know)
generates Message IDs that end in "@<domain of your email address>", which
spammers like to then treat as email addresses.
--
Dave Evans
Power Internet
PGP key:
http://powernet.co.uk/~davide/pgpkey
