From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frans Pop Subject: Re: git-send-email generates mail with invalid Message-Id Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:13:50 +0200 Message-ID: <200907281313.51304.elendil@planet.nl> References: <200907280446.22890.elendil@planet.nl> <200907281127.44558.trast@student.ethz.ch> <20090728104423.GA12947@vidovic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Rast , Erik Faye-Lund , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Sebrecht X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 28 13:14:07 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MVkd7-0002Tb-8z for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:14:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751181AbZG1LNx (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:13:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750874AbZG1LNx (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:13:53 -0400 Received: from cpsmtpm-eml110.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.14]:63093 "EHLO CPSMTPM-EML110.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750824AbZG1LNw (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:13:52 -0400 Received: from aragorn.fjphome.nl ([84.85.147.182]) by CPSMTPM-EML110.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.0.6001.18000); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:13:50 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 In-Reply-To: <20090728104423.GA12947@vidovic> Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2009 11:13:50.0873 (UTC) FILETIME=[7C40E090:01CA0F74] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tuesday 28 July 2009, you wrote: > Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Frans Pop wrote: > > > I assume that this is a configuration issue in the git setup of the > > > sender, but shouldn't git-send-email refuse to send out messages > > > with an invalid Message-Id? > > Stricly speacking, it is not an invalid Message-Id. RFC 2822 says that > the Message-Id has to be unique. The right hand side may not contain a > domain identifier. It is a RECOMMENDED practice (a good one, though). It also says that (3.6.4): The message identifier (msg-id) is similar in syntax to an angle-addr construct without the internal CFWS. And defines: message-id = "Message-ID:" msg-id CRLF msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS] So, the domain part *is* required (or at least: there has to be a "@"; it maybe does not require id-right to be an actual domain, but that's not really relevant here). So, IMO inn2's check is correct.