On 2006-01-18 23:21:45 +1100, Andrew Pam wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:07:31PM +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > Since MTAs don't usually enforce the uniqueness of message-ids (unlike > > newsserver), there is little incentive to ensure that email software > > isn't broken in this regard. For example, I have seen bounces which had > > the same message-ids as the mail that caused the bounce. > > But arguably that is still the same message coming back, just with a extra > layer of encapsulation.
I don't think so:
| Note: There are many instances when messages are "changed", but those
| changes do not constitute a new instantiation of that message, and
| therefore the message would not get a new message identifier. For
| example, when messages are introduced into the transport system, they
| are often prepended with additional header fields such as trace
| fields (described in section 3.6.7) and resent fields (described in
| section 3.6.6). The addition of such header fields does not change
| the identity of the message and therefore the original "Message-ID:"
| field is retained. In all cases, it is the meaning that the sender
| of the message wishes to convey (i.e., whether this is the same
| message or a different message) that determines whether or not the
| "Message-ID:" field changes, not any particular syntactic difference
| that appears (or does not appear) in the message.
(from RFC 2822, sec. 3.6.4. Identification fields)
The meaning of the bounce message is "you mistyped the address" or "the
recipients mail box is full" or whatever. This is not the same meaning
as that of the original message, even if the original message is
included in its entirety. Otherwise any reply with a fullquote would
have to retain the original message-id.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Ich sehe nun ein, dass Computer wenig
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | geeignet sind, um sich was zu merken.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Holger Lembke in dan-am
pgph02JArzOip.pgp
Description: PGP signature
