I've figured out that a friend's Domino Notes server is [being generous..] saving energy by skimping on bits; the Message-ID headers are as you see below. |X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 August 18, 2005 |Date: 03-Nov-2005 09:12:57 EST |Message-ID: |X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on IPMail01/IPSW(Release 6.5.1|January 21, 2004) at 11/03/2005 | 09:13:00 AM |MIME-Version: 1.0 |Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII The usual sources on a fix come up snake-eyes. Has any NANOGer run into a solution for this errr... unique RFC interpretation? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
On 06/11/05, David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com> wrote:
I've figured out that a friend's Domino Notes server is [being generous..] saving energy by skimping on bits; the Message-ID headers are as you see below.
|X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 August 18, 2005 |Date: 03-Nov-2005 09:12:57 EST |Message-ID:
Notes seems to insert reasonable looking message IDs .. this one has the domain part munged out of it, and is 6.5.4 rather than 7, but I have seen the same with other notes versions. Message-ID: <OF6E4D1F32.7496756A-ON88256FB8.0002C22D-88256FB8.00034533@foo.bar.com> So unless this is some kind of bug in domino 7, I'd probably parse this lack of message id as your friend or his notes admin goofed on their server's config, or perhaps someone there is trying security by obscurity, by suppressing "internal header information" etc. srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
participants (2)
-
David Lesher -
Suresh Ramasubramanian