notifications get a big penalty in Spamassassin (4.7 INVALID_MSGID=1.167,MSGID_NOFQDN1=2.899) and maybe other spam protection mechanisms, so at risk to be filtered and not seen by recipients
potential interoperability problems with mail user agents
Typically a domain or a "domain-like" identifier is chosen and must be unique, not necessarily a valid hostname, e. g.
Message-ID: <m20240606.1@voting.cacert.org>
**Impact**
* notifications get a big penalty in Spamassassin (`4.7 INVALID_MSGID=1.167,MSGID_NOFQDN1=2.899`) and maybe other spam protection mechanisms, so at risk to be filtered and not seen by recipients
* potential interoperability problems with mail user agents
**Sample**
`Message-ID: <m20240606.1>`
**Expected behaviour*
According to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322#page-25 the format is
`msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS]`
So this part is missing: `@" id-right "`
Typically a domain or a "domain-like" identifier is chosen and must be unique, not necessarily a valid hostname, e. g.
`Message-ID: <m20240606.1@voting.cacert.org>`
jandd
Impact
4.7 INVALID_MSGID=1.167,MSGID_NOFQDN1=2.899) and maybe other spam protection mechanisms, so at risk to be filtered and not seen by recipientsSample
Message-ID: <m20240606.1>*Expected behaviour
According to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322#page-25 the format is
msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS]So this part is missing:
@" id-right "Typically a domain or a "domain-like" identifier is chosen and must be unique, not necessarily a valid hostname, e. g.
Message-ID: <m20240606.1@voting.cacert.org>originally filed at https://bugs.cacert.org/view.php?id=1563