Hi all
I found in postfix log empty message id for email received. Is that mean I
am receiving spam ? and how can I handle that?
Regards
Hi
I have probably to trivial questions about message-ID
Why sometimes, some user have empty message-id=<>
example:
Nov 23 13:13:53 smtp1 postfix/submission/smtpd[29867]: 4CfmKF1CSDz5MwK:
.domain.ltd[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], sasl_method=login,
sasl_username=bi...@domain2.ltd
Nov 23 13:13:53
* Amira Othman :
> Hi all
>
> I found in postfix log empty message id for email received.
Yep, seen those too
> Is that mean I am receiving spam ?
No, it means you're receiving mails with an empty message-id :)
> and how can I handle that?
What is there to handle? S
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:39:25 +0200, Amira Othman wrote:
I found in postfix log empty message id for email received. Is that
mean I am receiving spam ? and how can I handle that?
spamassassin hits on MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT from this mail, so related ?
id so I can use
it instead of message id? And is it unique ?
* Amira Othman :
> Hi all
>
> I found in postfix log empty message id for email received.
Yep, seen those too
> Is that mean I am receiving spam ?
No, it means you're receiving mails with an empty message-id :)
* Amira Othman :
> No everything is working fine. But I thought that every email is sent
> associated with unique message id.
Theory and praxis :)
> And I am using it in a script that parse log file to insert it to
> database. But now I have duplication in message id because of empty one
> . doe
Amira Othman:
> Hi all
>
> I found in postfix log empty message id for email received. Is that mean I
> am receiving spam ? and how can I handle that?
Postfix logs an empty message-id when the message does not have one.
According to RFC 822 and its successors, Message-ID is
On 23.11.20 14:35, natan wrote:
I have probably to trivial questions about message-ID
Why sometimes, some user have empty message-id=<>
example:
Nov 23 13:13:53 smtp1 postfix/submission/smtpd[29867]: 4CfmKF1CSDz5MwK:
.domain.ltd[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], sasl_method=login,
sasl_usern
gt;>
>> Why sometimes, some user have empty message-id=<>
>>
>> example:
>> Nov 23 13:13:53 smtp1 postfix/submission/smtpd[29867]: 4CfmKF1CSDz5MwK:
>> .domain.ltd[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], sasl_method=login,
>> sasl_username=bi...@domain2.ltd
>> Nov 23 13
On 11/23/20 9:49 AM, maciejm wrote:
Hi
Thanks for replay I found "RFC 822 Message-ID is not required"
Probably "problem" is in configurations in some clients.
I used to have a client who was not getting emails from one of his friends.
Turned out that the friend's client/MUA was not adding the
Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>
> I used to have a client who was not getting emails from one of his
> friends. Turned out that the friend's client/MUA was not adding the
> message ID.
Doesn't Postfix automatically add Message-Id: header upon sending a message
if none is pr
On 11/23/20 9:18 AM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
> On 11/23/20 9:49 AM, maciejm wrote:
>> Hi
>> Thanks for replay I found "RFC 822 Message-ID is not required"
>> Probably "problem" is in configurations in some clients.
>
> I used to have a client who was not getting emails from one of his friends.
> Tur
Jaroslaw Rafa:
> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
> >
> > I used to have a client who was not getting emails from one of his
> > friends. Turned out that the friend's client/MUA was not adding the
> > message ID.
>
> Doesn't Postfix automatically add Message-Id: header upon se
On 11/23/20 10:44 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
I used to have a client who was not getting emails from one of his
friends. Turned out that the friend's client/MUA was not adding the
message ID.
Doesn't Postfix automatically add Message-Id: head
D'Arcy Cain skrev den 2020-11-23 15:18:
:0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 65536 $HOME/.msgid.cache
In other words, the message ID "" was considered a duplicate after the
first one.
if you use postfix there would be uniq msgid always, eq postfix ensures
there is always fqdn in msgid aswell, many
Benny Pedersen:
> D'Arcy Cain skrev den 2020-11-23 15:18:
>
> > :0 Wh: msgid.lock
> > | formail -D 65536 $HOME/.msgid.cache
> >
> > In other words, the message ID "" was considered a duplicate after the
> > first one.
>
> if you use postfix there would be uniq msgid always, eq postfix ensures
>
Wietse Venema skrev den 2020-11-23 17:10:
Postfix 2.6 and later don't add a Message-ID header, unless the
message comes from a "local" source. That header is a combination
of a time stamp and the Postfix $myhostname value, so it is unique
as long as both values are unique.
okay, what if msgid
Benny Pedersen:
> Wietse Venema skrev den 2020-11-23 17:10:
>
> > Postfix 2.6 and later don't add a Message-ID header, unless the
> > message comes from a "local" source. That header is a combination
> > of a time stamp and the Postfix $myhostname value, so it is unique
> > as long as both values
On 23 Nov 2020, at 06:49, maciejm wrote:
> "RFC 822 Message-ID is not required"
RFC 822 has been obsoleted several times.
RFC 5322 states:
Though listed as optional in the table in section 3.6, every message
SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field. Furthermore, reply messages
SHOULD have "
On 23 Nov 2020, at 07:44, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>
>> :0 Wh: msgid.lock
>> | formail -D 65536 $HOME/.msgid.cache
>
> Who uses that?
Everyone who ever used procmail? Nearly everyone who ever used procmail?
It's even in the procmail man page.
Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
> > After the first message was accepted all of the rest
> > were silently dropped as duplicates due to a very standard procmail
> > recipe:
> >
> > :0 Wh: msgid.lock
> > | formail -D 65536 $HOME/.msgid.cache
>
> Who uses
Le 23/11/2020 à 20:16, @lbutlr a écrit :
> On 23 Nov 2020, at 06:49, maciejm wrote:
>> "RFC 822 Message-ID is not required"
> RFC 822 has been obsoleted several times.
>
> RFC 5322 states:
>
>Though listed as optional in the table in section 3.6, every message
>SHOULD have a "Message-ID:"
On 11/23/20 3:34 PM, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 23/11/2020 à 20:16, @lbutlr a écrit :
>> On 23 Nov 2020, at 06:49, maciejm wrote:
>>> "RFC 822 Message-ID is not required"
>> RFC 822 has been obsoleted several times.
>>
>> RFC 5322 states:
>>
>>Though listed as optional in the table in section 3.
Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>
> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
> person gets two copies. The above recipe avoids that.
If someone gets two copies - a direct one and the mailing list one - then
he/she knows that the sender has replied
On 11/23/20 5:27 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
>> person gets two copies. The above recipe avoids that.
> If someone gets two copies - a direct one and the mailing list one - th
On 23 Nov 2020, at 13:34, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 23/11/2020 à 20:16, @lbutlr a écrit :
>> I would feel comfortable rejecting messages without a Message-ID.
> Maybe on smtp, but not on submission. FOr me policy there is completeley
> different
On submission postfix adds the message ID as is prop
On 23 Nov 2020, at 13:24, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>> After the first message was accepted all of the rest
>>> were silently dropped as duplicates due to a very standard procmail
>>> recipe:
>>>
>>> :0 Wh: msgid.lock
>>> | fo
On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>
>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
>> person gets two copies. The above recipe avoids that.
> Moreover, it breaks the continuity of threads on mailing lis
On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:40, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/23/20 5:27 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
>>> person gets two copies. The above recipe avoids that.
>> If someone gets t
@lbutlr wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> > Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
> >>
> >> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
> >> person gets two copies. The above recipe avoids that.
>
> > Moreover, it breaks the continu
@lbutlr wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > But so many people use Gmail these days that they have gotten used to
> > the way Gmail does things. And Gmail de-duplicates and saves the
> > first message with any particular message-id that arrives. And then
> > displays a "mailbox" showing a view of the
Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 16:29:13 @lbutlr pisze:
>
> This is not accurate. First, the direct message almost certainly arrives
> first.
Unless you use greylisting :) - in that case list message usually arrives
first, as the direct message is generally from previously unknown sender and
has to wait.
On 11/24/20 1:51 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> @lbutlr wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
person gets two copies. The above recipe avoids that.
>>
Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
person gets two copies. The above recipe avoids that.
On 11/23/20 5:27 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
If someone gets two copies - a direct one and the mailing list one - then
h
On 24.11.20 13:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
note that it's possible to Bcc: message to mailing list so it does not
contain list address in To:/Cc:
... as this message clearly shows.
I set mailing lists not to avoid duplicate messages (and usually drop direct
mail).
However, this thread
On 24 Nov 2020, at 05:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 23.11.20 16:30, @lbutlr wrote:
>> Or you use procmail/Sieve to add a reply-to header to messages that have
>> the mailing list email in the headers.
> It's silly to set up procmail rule to remove "duplicate" message and then
> set up ru
On 23 Nov 2020, at 23:51, Bob Proulx wrote:
> @lbutlr wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
person gets two copies. The above recipe avo
On 23 Nov 2020, at 23:55, Bob Proulx wrote:
> @lbutlr wrote:
>> Bob Proulx wrote:
>>> But so many people use Gmail these days that they have gotten used to
>>> the way Gmail does things. And Gmail de-duplicates and saves the
>>> first message with any particular message-id that arrives. And then
On 24 Nov 2020, at 02:44, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 16:29:13 @lbutlr pisze:
>>
>> This is not accurate. First, the direct message almost certainly arrives
>> first.
>
> Unless you use greylisting
That's a whole different issue and anyone using greylisting now I would never
Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 12:20:23 @lbutlr pisze:
> > I'm not talking about client getting confused about threading. I'm talking
> > about the fact that when you get only an off-list message and reply to it,
> > the reply goes only to the original sender and not to the list,
>
> No, that is not the
On 24 Nov 2020, at 13:57, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 12:20:23 @lbutlr pisze:
>>> I'm not talking about client getting confused about threading. I'm talking
>>> about the fact that when you get only an off-list message and reply to it,
>>> the reply goes only to the original sen
Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 14:37:13 @lbutlr pisze:
> > Only the copy that went through the mailing list has those,
>
> No.
>
> Please re-read what I wrote.
So, I looked through my archives and found an actual message from this
mailing list, that someone sent both to me and to list. Below are the ac
On 24 Nov 2020, at 15:08, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 14:37:13 @lbutlr pisze:
>>> Only the copy that went through the mailing list has those,
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Please re-read what I wrote.
>
> So, I looked through my archives and found an actual message from this
> mailing list
Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 16:25:54 @lbutlr pisze:
>
> Note that the headers you include have NEITHER a reply-to header NOR an
> X-Listname header. Why? Because those are added BY MY MAILSERVER.
[...]
> Not talking about average mail users, Never have been talking about
> average mail users. This s
On 24 Nov 2020, at 17:23, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
> That's the reason why I ignore the specifics of your setup and concentrate
> on de-duplication in general.
Interesting rationalization. But sure, have it your way.
--
'A man like that could inspire a handful of broken men to conquer a
cou
On 24/11/20 3:56 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
Jaroslaw Rafa:
Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
I used to have a client who was not getting emails from one of his
friends. Turned out that the friend's client/MUA was not adding the
message ID.
Doesn't Postfix automatically add M
On 25/11/20 1:53 am, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
However, this thread is off-topic. We should close it with conclusion:
don't avoid duplicate mail based on Message-Id:
A better conclusion would be to not consider messages with a missing or
empty Message-Id to be duplicates of each
On 25/11/20 1:53 am, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
However, this thread is off-topic. We should close it with conclusion:
don't avoid duplicate mail based on Message-Id:
On 25.11.20 15:04, Peter wrote:
A better conclusion would be to not consider messages with a missing
or empty Messa
Peter:
> On 24/11/20 3:56 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Jaroslaw Rafa:
> >> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
> >>>
> >>> I used to have a client who was not getting emails from one of his
> >>> friends. Turned out that the friend's client/MUA was not adding the
> >>> message ID.
Wietse Venema:
> Peter:
> > Might want to clarify that in cleanup(8):
> >
> > The cleanup(8) daemon always performs the following transformations:
> >
> > ? Insert missing message headers: (Resent-) From:, To:,
> > Message-Id:, and Date:.
> >
> > ...the explicit use of the
On 26/11/20 5:03 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse Venema:
Peter:
Might want to clarify that in cleanup(8):
The cleanup(8) daemon always performs the following transformations:
? Insert missing message headers: (Resent-) From:, To:,
Message-Id:, and Date:.
...the explici
51 matches
Mail list logo
