Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA01565; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:47:05 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:43:28 -0500 Received: from jekyll.piermont.com (jekyll.piermont.com [206.1.51.15]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA01174; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:43:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (perry@localhost) by jekyll.piermont.com (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA23417; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:42:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199603221442.JAA23417@jekyll.piermont.com> X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: Host perry@localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: Dave Crocker cc: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Issues summary web page In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:47:43 PST." Reply-To: perry@piermont.com X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:42:29 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Dave Crocker writes: > At 2:55 PM 3/21/96, D. J. Bernstein wrote: > >I object to Message-ID being required. It is pointless in bounce > >messages, for example. > > It's never pointless, in my view, IFF the message-id is not merely > a random string stuck in the message and then forgotten. If it is actually > used by software that processes, e.g., recorded in handling logs, then it > is ALWAYS good to have one for a message. This includes bounce messages > and other "control" messages. During transit, they are just like any other > message and therefore can be the subject of network management activities. I've written plenty of software that depends on Message-Id: being present. I would be very upset if some messages didn't include them. Perry