[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Option for sendmail.el WAS: FAQ 5.2 still correct? [solved]
From: |
Ted Zlatanov |
Subject: |
Re: Option for sendmail.el WAS: FAQ 5.2 still correct? [solved] |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:16:43 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Memnon Anon
<gegendosenfleisch@googlemail.com> wrote:
MA> On 10 Jul., 16:53, Ted Zlatanov <t...@lifelogs.com> wrote:
>> You can set your user-mail-address and the FQDN for the message ID will
>> be automatically deduced from it (by message-make-fqdn, which calls
>> message-user-mail-address). Is that sufficient or do you need do set
>> the domain of the message ID separately from your user-mail-address?
MA> I just checked. I added those 3 lines again and sent a mail to my
MA> other mail
MA> account. Result:
MA> Message-Id: <83d4ljuakt.fsf@home.localdomain>
MA> This is no vaild id. My machine is named home.
Can you call (message-make-fqdn) (hit `C-x C-e' after the closing
parenthesis)? Also call (message-user-mail-address) and let us know
what they say. Finally, what's the value of user-mail-address (use
`C-h v' to find out)?
If your user-mail-address is set properly you should not get that
message ID. In your particular case you should get
<random-id@googlemail.com>.
MA> And even if there would be Message-Id:
MA> <83d4ljuakt.fsf@googlemail.com>,
MA> this would still not be vaild, because my machine has no
MA> right to create a message Id like this.
Generally speaking, you can make any message ID you like, it's just good
netiquette not to unless you don't have your own IP in a static domain.
I don't know if there's a relevant RFC, but at least this draft infers
you can generate it with the domain of your e-mail address:
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-message-id-01.txt
supported by some discussions:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/1997/May/0181.html
MA> This might result in duplicate M-ID, which is usually no problem.
MA> But using Mailing lists, there is a tiny little chance this might be a
MA> problem.
I wouldn't worry about it. The chance that Gnus' algorithm will
conflict with Google's algorithm is negligible. Of course, avoiding
this possibility is your choice.
Ted
- Re: FAQ 5.2 still correct?, Memnon Anon, 2008/07/04
- Re: FAQ 5.2 still correct?, renaudr, 2008/07/07
- Re: FAQ 5.2 still correct?, Memnon Anon, 2008/07/07
- Re: FAQ 5.2 still correct? [solved], Memnon Anon, 2008/07/08
- Re: FAQ 5.2 still correct? [solved], Ted Zlatanov, 2008/07/09
- Option for sendmail.el WAS: FAQ 5.2 still correct? [solved], Memnon Anon, 2008/07/10
- Re: Option for sendmail.el WAS: FAQ 5.2 still correct? [solved], Ted Zlatanov, 2008/07/10
- Re: Option for sendmail.el WAS: FAQ 5.2 still correct? [solved], Memnon Anon, 2008/07/11
- Re: Option for sendmail.el WAS: FAQ 5.2 still correct? [solved],
Ted Zlatanov <=
- Re: Option for sendmail.el, Memnon Anon, 2008/07/14
- Re: Option for sendmail.el, Ted Zlatanov, 2008/07/14
- Re: Option for sendmail.el, Memnon Anon, 2008/07/17