Greetings,
I have a question about the Message-ID, References, and
In-Reply-To: headers. Although this may not directly
relate to SPF, it is an unfortunate example of how message
headers may change in transit.
From reading RFC2822, I understand how the syntax and value
of a msg-id is governed by the ABNF semantics,
This would be a valid header in the initial message,
Message-ID:
<a06110403be36e65087ef(_at_)[209(_dot_)86(_dot_)7(_dot_)86]>
These headers would be valid as part of one reply,
In-Reply-To:
<a06110403be36e65087ef(_at_)[209(_dot_)86(_dot_)7(_dot_)86]>
References: <a06110403be36e65087ef(_at_)[209(_dot_)86(_dot_)7(_dot_)86]>
These headers would also be valid as part of another reply,
In-Reply-To:
<42117B3E(_dot_)3070106(_at_)sitka(_dot_)engin(_dot_)umich(_dot_)edu>
References: <a06110403be36e65087ef(_at_)209(_dot_)86(_dot_)7(_dot_)86>
<42117B3E(_dot_)3070106(_at_)sitka(_dot_)engin(_dot_)umich(_dot_)edu>
The examples above are from actual message traffic.
The issue I see here (but don't understand) is that in some
cases, the square brackets ("[" and "]") are dropped out of
the msg-id(s) that appear in the In-Reply-To: and References:
headers
That doesn't seem to be correct ... and it wreaks havoc on
message threading.
Am I correct in thinking that if the original message-id had
square brackets in the id-right, those characters have to be
included in every reply?
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Thanks for your attention and interest.
--
Martin G. Diehl