On 1 Jan 2018, at 12:47 (-0500), Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 1 Jan 2018, at 11:41 (-0500), Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
the gross format in RFCs 822,2822 and 5322 describes message-id
consisting
of local and domain part, thus is must contain "@".
On 01.01.18 12:17, Bill Cole wrote:
No, it does not. Re-read the cited sections. From RFC5322, the ABNF
definition:
msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS]
this is the part that says message-id must consist of local and domain
parts. It just says it implicitly, not explicitly, but:
It's not possible to construct Message-Id without the "@" while
conforming
to any of mentioned RFCs.
True, but one could just as easily split up a UUID with '@' instead of
'-' and comply while being as sure of uniqueness as could ever matter.
Or put full UUIDs on both sides of the '@'. If a V1 UUID is on the
right, it is even a host-unique identifier after a fashion.
Also note that if you demand that MIDs contain '@' with conforming
strings on both sides, you risk losing mail that users want. This is
a mistake I have made.
what exactly was the problem? Message-Id without the "@" or the
non-conforming parts there?
Missing '@'
Some messages lacking it were generated by antique systems that had
proven themselves resistant to evolutionary pressures.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Currently Seeking Steady Work: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole
