Todd C. Miller [mill...@openbsd.org] wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:50:08 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > Presumably 465 should be treated the same, though the hardcoded ports > > don't feel entirely right here - this is presumably something that would > > want adding for any connection which is allowed to relay .. > > Yes, I think so. Hard-coding ports is not great but there isn't a > way in the config file to indicate that explicitly. >
The Message-ID should be added to any message that doesn't have one. An existing Message-ID should not be removed or changed. The RFC says it "MAY be applied when necessary by an originating SMTP server" so the port numbers aren't a terrible idea, but it leaves open plenty of room to not add one if someone isn't following the 465/587 scheme. If the smtp_tx_dataline or a subset could be called when we know the message isn't being delivered locally, that would be ideal and avoid the need to lookup port numbers. Chris
