On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:50:19 +0100 Markus Clardy wrote: > That isn't the Message-Id, that is > the X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id... The Message-Id is > compliant. >
As is X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id in the original > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Rupert Gallagher > <r...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > > The raw e-mail in pastebin returns a non-well-formed Message-ID. I > > attach a photo of what I see. > > > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:05 PM, John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Rupert Gallagher wrote: > Easy one. The > > Message-ID is not well formed / RFC compliant. We reject such junk > > upfront. How so? That looks totally valid to me... < dot-atom-text > > @ dot-atom-text > The line break between the header and the ID is > > unusual, but not invalid. That might potentially be a usable spam > > sign. > > > > > >
