211–220 of 443 posts
The Gmail requirement is actually slightly different: the header must be present and unique. Gmail only keeps one copy of a message per user and message ID. Combined with a mail source that uses predictable message IDs (such as Github), you can abuse this to suppress delivery of certain messages to Gmail users.
The Gmail requirement is actually slightly different: the header must be present and unique. Gmail only keeps one copy of a message per user and message ID. Combined with a mail source that uses predictable message IDs (such as Github), you can abuse this to suppress delivery of certain messages to Gmail users.
Interesting, but what do you gain to send an email which you know will not land?
My pet peeve are services that go out of their way to include a text/plain alternative message part but send something useless, such as the message without the key link. One time I seriously ran into a service just send a short one-sentence note along the lines of "this is a plain text email" as the plain text part. If you don't want to support plain text, maybe just don't send the alternative part?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://jmap.io
jmap is the communication between a mail client and shared directory/mail services on a server. It does not include server to server communications (that I am aware of) for sending mail to other users/servers.
> If you wanted to make email two point oh, I dont think it would look a lot like what we have today.
The specific bug is annoying, but that there's no way to report such a thing is an exact hallmark of our current corposphere.
Google's Postmaster Tools site has a "Report deliverabilty issue" link at the bottom left navigation column. https://postmaster.google.com/v2/sender_compliance
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt Google Workspace is going to be the major provider for European businesses
...and you'd be wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I don't want to" is not a valid excuse for the client . If you're implementing a server, "the client SHOULD but didn't" isn't a valid excuse to reject a client either. You can do it anyway, you might even have good reasons for it, but then you sure don't get to point at the RFC and call the client broken.
> isn't a valid excuse to reject a client either. Yes it absolutely is: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 is quite clear. 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. If the client SHOULD do something and do…
I don’t care what the protocol rfc says, the client arbitrarily rejecting an email from the server for some missing unimportant header (for deduction detection?) is silly.
My pet peeve are services that go out of their way to include a text/plain alternative message part but send something useless, such as the message without the key link. One time I seriously ran into a service just send a short one-sentence note along the lines of "this is a plain text email" as the plain text part. If you don't want to support plain text, maybe just don't send the alternative part?
So I'm wondering a bit here - I've seen an implementation where emails to send only have html versions, but as part of the sending process the html is run through a Lynx browser process with the -dump command to get the plain text, which is included as the text/plain part of the email. Is there actual value to this? e.g. Is the output of Lynx's text dump better for plain-text email clients than whatever they'd displa…
Sudden realization that one of my American banks must be having email problems with this too because I use a Google custom email and recently got an in-app notification from my bank saying "we're unable to email you" (and a letter) yet my email works perfectly fine... switching to consumer gmail worked.
Do you actually not receive their emails? Fidelity uses tracker dots to check email receipt, which drives me nuts, because like any sane person I don't allow emails to load images without damn good reason. My brokerage should not be sending me cute dog photos, thus I have no need of their images. So they send me an email, send me another email saying they can't reach me by email, then mail me a letter with the same c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is not having a message-id a security risk? It seems that Gmail is being pedantic for no reason
> How is not having a message-id a security risk? CVE classify a lot of things that have nothing to do with security. Not having a Message-ID can cause problems for loop-detection (especially on busy netnews and mailing lists), and with reliable delivery status notification. Dealing with these things for clients who can't read the RFC wastes memory and time which can potentially deny legitimate users access to servic…