Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA19548; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 17:30:22 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Fri, 22 Mar 1996 17:29:56 -0500 Received: from glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu (glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.81.2]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA19370; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 17:29:54 -0500 Received: from resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu by glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA06229; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:28:58 -0600 X-Sender: resnick@glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19960322220315.AAA8224@rome.software.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 3.0b90-4.96] Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:29:28 -0600 To: michael.derrico@software.com (Michael D'Errico) From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: Message-ID: Regroup Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu On 3/22/96 at 4:03 PM, Michael D'Errico wrote: >The MTA must not add headers to messages (except for its Received line). Yes. I am willing to withdraw the idea of MTAs adding Message-IDs to messages which don't have them to stick to this philosophy and limit MTA changes as much as possible. MTAs may only add Received lines. Good. [With regard to the claim that 822 messages MUST have message-IDs:] >...it should be SHOULD, or else messages lacking Message-ID's might bounce. This is to say that if we say MUST, then receivers will bounce things that don't have them? Would it be satifactory to simply add "recipients MUST NOT bounce" or "SHOULD NOT bounce"? Making Message-IDs a SHOULD is OK, but again, given their utility a MUST would be better. pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated Home: (217)337-1905 / Fax: (217)337-1980