On 11/25/06 10:30 AM, "Ian P. Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that message-id without a FQDN for the latter part is
> reasonably common.
Yes, it is very common. It is what Outlook Express does on a machine that
doesn't know what domain it is in (most non-organizational Windows
m
On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 22:44 +0100, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
> So
> instead of rewriting msgids (they are already out, anyway) I block them:
>
> condition = ${if match
> {$local_part}{\N(?i)^[0-9a-f]{8}\.[0-9a-f]{7}$\N}}
Do you actually have valid local users with localparts like that?
Wouldn't th
Quoting Dave Evans:
> 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 "@", which
> spammers like to
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006, Ian P. Christian wrote:
> A user on a server of mine recently forwarded me this:
> ---
> Your message triggered a spam alert on my system (i.e. it didn't show as
> definitely spam but it contained warning signs).
> Checking, t
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 10:53:37AM +, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> I'd strongly advise against rewriting message-IDs
> generated by MUAs, since users might be expecting their
> MUAs to be able to identify their messages using them
Point taken, but in this case I am the one and only user in que
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:43:22PM +, Dave Evans wrote:
[...]
> 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 Mess
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 06:30:35PM +, 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: <[E
Dave Evans wrote:
> Whichever SMTP client said "HELO James" is in the wrong for violation of
> RFC2821 (that command does not match the HELO command's syntax).
This was over authenticated SMTP, from an end user using outlook
express, whilst I know that's wrong i think it's pretty normal -
howeve
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 06:02:33AM +, Ian P. Christian wrote:
> The problem is therefore twofold:
> - your mail software is using the name "James" in the HELO instead of
>"james.custdomain.com" or some such;
> - you (whether on "James" or mail.domain.co.uk) aren't inserting a
>legal mes
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:44 PM
> To: exim-users@exim.org
> Subject: [exim] Message ID
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to know how message ID is generated by exim.
>
> Ex: 1DeJiO-0008B7-Oh
>
> I will mount a load
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to know how message ID is generated by exim.
>
> Ex: 1DeJiO-0008B7-Oh
>
take a look at spec.txt:
3.4 Message identification
--
Dave Lugo [EMAIL PROTECTED]LC
11 matches
Mail list logo
