Re: bug with the Message-ID ?

["M. Thielker" <balsa t-data com>]

Hi,

On 2001.12.03 09:52 Brian Stafford wrote:
> I think this is wrong, RFC 2822 requires messages to have Message-Id:  It 
> might be better if the identity specified  the domain to use when 
> generating the message-id: header instead.

No, CIS will not accept a message with _any_ message id, AFAIK. They go to 
great lengths to insure that only subscribers use their service and to foil 
any attempts, even by subscribers, to use mass mailing software.
Since such software typically inserts a forged message id, from and 
possibly received headers, the CIS mail server will reject any such 
messages. CIS's is a very old system that between '85 and '98 was 
accessible with proprietary software only, in some areas, by preference in 
others.
They still go on the assumption that the user uses their WinCim software, 
even though they have started to adopt some internet standards.
No one will be able to show them the error of their ways because their 
ultimate answer will always be "Use our software, ItWorks!"

Now, we can either stick to the requirement that all systems Balsa can 
connect to _must_ strictly adhere to the standards or we can adapt to the 
actual conditions, that most systems don't implement the standards 
completely, or do additional things in violation of existing standards.

I would opt for adding an option to sippress the message id completely, not 
based on any checks or the port number but with a simple checkbox on prefs.
Most systems currently in use will use port 25 for submission as well as 
forwarding and will distinguish between the two by the recipients address. 
Some, like CIS, will not accept a message id if the transaction is deemed 
to be a submission.
Forcing Balsa to use a port other than 25 for this to work will only serve 
to limit Balsa's usability because a corporation as big as CIS _will_ not 
change the way their server works just because _one_ program requires it.

Melanie