empty message-ID

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
45 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
On 23 Nov 2020, at 13:24, Bob Proulx <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>> After the first message was accepted all of the rest
>>> were silently dropped as duplicates due to a very standard procmail
>>> recipe:
>>>
>>> :0 Wh: msgid.lock
>>> | formail -D 65536 $HOME/.msgid.cache
>>
>> Who uses that? It's not normal to get email duplicates and it usually
>> means that mail system is not functioning properly. They should find the
>> cause of the duplicates and eliminate it instead of hiding symptoms...
>
> Although I have been using procmail since the inception of it I have
> always found this type rule problematic.  Because for me it keeps the
> wrong message.  If I am sent a direct copy and a mailing list copy
> then the copy I want is the mailing list copy.

Since my list filters looked at the to and CC headers this wasn't an issue.

> But so many people use Gmail these days that they have gotten used to
> the way Gmail does things.  And Gmail de-duplicates and saves the
> first message with any particular message-id that arrives.  And then
> displays a "mailbox" showing a view of the current tag being
> displayed.  It's a very different paradigm from having separate
> mailbox folders for different topics.

I don't use Gmail much, but my primary sort criteria now is a series of smart searches in Mail.app.

List mail al goes into a single "List" mailbox, then a smart search shows me, for example, all the postfix-users messages as a virtual mailbox.

The means that I rarely see the messages sent directly to me instead of the list because I don't generally read the "list" mailbox directly. Every now and then I archive all the list messages which takes them out of the smart mailboxes. (I could automate that action, but I haven't for reasons).

--
'Witches just aren't like that,' said Magrat. 'We live in harmony
        with the great cycles of Nature, and do no harm to anyone, and
        it's wicked of them to say we don't. We ought to fill their bones
        with hot lead.'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
In reply to this post by Jaroslaw Rafa
On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>
>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
>> person gets two copies.  The above recipe avoids that.

> Moreover, it breaks the continuity of threads on mailing lists, because it's
> unpredictable which copy will arrive first, and if only the direct copy is
> left, the reply will go only to the sender and not to the mailing list. Thus
> some messages are missing from lists.

This is not accurate. First, the direct message almost certainly arrives first. Second of all, that message still has headers indicating it was sent to the mailing list. Third, whether your client gets confused about threading is a client issue, not an issue of the mail message. (My client does not get confused and the messages end up in the same virtual mailbox regardless).

>> People also send to every alias that someone has.  Example,
>> billing@, admin@, support@, joe@, etc.

> But it's usually one message with multiple recipients, and if all these
> recipients "resolve" to the same final destination, the receiving MTA
> usually avoids creating duplicates. At least that was always the case for me
> as the recipient, no matter if I was using sendmail, Exim or Postfix for my
> mail.

We are talking about duplicated messages with the same message-id. That is one message with multiple recipients. If they were separate messages, they would have unique message-id headers.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but why would anyone want a depressed tongue?"

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
In reply to this post by Richard Damon
On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:40, Richard Damon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/23/20 5:27 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
>>> person gets two copies.  The above recipe avoids that.
>> If someone gets two copies - a direct one and the mailing list one - then
>> he/she knows that the sender has replied both to author and to the list and
>> can instruct the sender not to do it. With the above recipe, the recipient
>> doesn't even know about that.
>>
>> Moreover, it breaks the continuity of threads on mailing lists, because it's
>> unpredictable which copy will arrive first, and if only the direct copy is
>> left, the reply will go only to the sender and not to the mailing list. Thus
>> some messages are missing from lists.
>
> You CAN still reply to the list from the private copy, you won't have a
> 'Reply-to-List' opiton, because of the lack of list headers, but
> 'Reply-All' will still work.
>
> It just becomes a bit harder to reply back JUST to the list. Your need
> Reply-All and then editing the list of recipients.

Or you use procmail/Sieve to add a reply-to header to messages that have the mailing list email in the headers.


--
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
        completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of
        complete fools.: - Douglas Adams

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Bob Proulx
In reply to this post by @lbutlr
@lbutlr wrote:

> On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
> >>
> >> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
> >> person gets two copies.  The above recipe avoids that.
>
> > Moreover, it breaks the continuity of threads on mailing lists, because it's
> > unpredictable which copy will arrive first, and if only the direct copy is
> > left, the reply will go only to the sender and not to the mailing list. Thus
> > some messages are missing from lists.
>
> This is not accurate. First, the direct message almost certainly
> arrives first. Second of all, that message still has headers
> indicating it was sent to the mailing list.

That is not accurate.  The direct message never went through the
mailing list.  The direct copy is missing the mailing list headers.
For this list the direct copy is missing these headers.
 
    Sender: [hidden email]
    Precedence: bulk
    List-Id: Postfix users <[hidden email]>
    List-Post: <mailto:[hidden email]>
    List-Help: <http://www.postfix.org/lists.html>
    List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[hidden email]>
    List-Subscribe: <mailto:[hidden email]>

The most important of those are List-Id and List-Post without which
the message will not be filed correctly and most mailers will not be
able to list reply correctly.  This puts the onus upon the receiver to
manually take corrective action with the message.  That is something
that I and probably most readers of this list can do.  But for most
random people today they do not understand email and most people today
do not have the skill to do this correctly.  For them it is simply
completely broken.

> >> People also send to every alias that someone has.  Example,
> >> billing@, admin@, support@, joe@, etc.
>
> > But it's usually one message with multiple recipients, and if all these
> > recipients "resolve" to the same final destination, the receiving MTA
> > usually avoids creating duplicates. At least that was always the case for me
> > as the recipient, no matter if I was using sendmail, Exim or Postfix for my
> > mail.
>
> We are talking about duplicated messages with the same
> message-id. That is one message with multiple recipients. If they
> were separate messages, they would have unique message-id headers.

That is not accurate.  A single message to multiple recipients will
have one Message-Id.  If you receive it by being the target of some of
those multiple recipients then you will receive multiple copies of the
message and all of the copies will have the same Message-Id.

Bob
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Bob Proulx
In reply to this post by @lbutlr
@lbutlr wrote:

> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > But so many people use Gmail these days that they have gotten used to
> > the way Gmail does things.  And Gmail de-duplicates and saves the
> > first message with any particular message-id that arrives.  And then
> > displays a "mailbox" showing a view of the current tag being
> > displayed.  It's a very different paradigm from having separate
> > mailbox folders for different topics.
>
> I don't use Gmail much, but my primary sort criteria now is a series
> of smart searches in Mail.app.

I don't use Gmail at all.  But the people who do not use Gmail are in
the minority.  It's the world we live in now.  I have to know how
Gmail works even though I don't use it because almost everyone else
around me uses it.

Bob
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Jaroslaw Rafa
In reply to this post by @lbutlr
Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 16:29:13 @lbutlr pisze:
>
> This is not accurate. First, the direct message almost certainly arrives
> first.

Unless you use greylisting :) - in that case list message usually arrives
first, as the direct message is generally from previously unknown sender and
has to wait. It happened for me multiple times.

> Third, whether your client gets confused about
> threading is a client issue, not an issue of the mail message.  (My client
> does not get confused and the messages end up in the same virtual mailbox
> regardless).

I'm not talking about client getting confused about threading. I'm talking
about the fact that when you get only an off-list message and reply to it,
the reply goes only to the original sender and not to the list, thus
messages are missing from thread on the list (thread understood as an
abstract concept, not a particular implementation in this or that client).
--
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   [hidden email]
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Richard Damon
In reply to this post by Bob Proulx
On 11/24/20 1:51 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:

> @lbutlr wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
>>>> person gets two copies.  The above recipe avoids that.
>>> Moreover, it breaks the continuity of threads on mailing lists, because it's
>>> unpredictable which copy will arrive first, and if only the direct copy is
>>> left, the reply will go only to the sender and not to the mailing list. Thus
>>> some messages are missing from lists.
>> This is not accurate. First, the direct message almost certainly
>> arrives first. Second of all, that message still has headers
>> indicating it was sent to the mailing list.
> That is not accurate.  The direct message never went through the
> mailing list.  The direct copy is missing the mailing list headers.
> For this list the direct copy is missing these headers.
>  
>     Sender: [hidden email]
>     Precedence: bulk
>     List-Id: Postfix users <[hidden email]>
>     List-Post: <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     List-Help: <http://www.postfix.org/lists.html>
>     List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     List-Subscribe: <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> The most important of those are List-Id and List-Post without which
> the message will not be filed correctly and most mailers will not be
> able to list reply correctly.  This puts the onus upon the receiver to
> manually take corrective action with the message.  That is something
> that I and probably most readers of this list can do.  But for most
> random people today they do not understand email and most people today
> do not have the skill to do this correctly.  For them it is simply
> completely broken.

Slight details, those headers indicate that it is FROM the mailing list,
the direct message will still have the To: or Cc: header indicating that
it was TO the mailing list.

That says that a Reply-All will still go to the list (and send a direct
copy back to the person who sent this to you, which might be what they
want).

How the message get filed will depend on how you have your filters setup
for the messages, and the difference is perhaps useful. After all, a
reply to your posting might be considered of higher importance than just
a run of the mill posting to the list, so not filing it the same might
be correct.

One way to make a personal reply less likely would be for you to add a
Reply-To: header pointing to the list submission address, that way if
someone is using a MUA that doesn't support the 'Reply-To-List' function
and does a Reply-All, it is likely that it will redirect the reply to
the list. (More broken MUAs might still send you a copy, if the ignore
or mishandle Reply-All.)

--
Richard Damon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Matus UHLAR - fantomas
In reply to this post by @lbutlr
>>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
>>>> person gets two copies.  The above recipe avoids that.

>> On 11/23/20 5:27 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
>>> If someone gets two copies - a direct one and the mailing list one - then
>>> he/she knows that the sender has replied both to author and to the list and
>>> can instruct the sender not to do it. With the above recipe, the recipient
>>> doesn't even know about that.
>>>
>>> Moreover, it breaks the continuity of threads on mailing lists, because it's
>>> unpredictable which copy will arrive first, and if only the direct copy is
>>> left, the reply will go only to the sender and not to the mailing list. Thus
>>> some messages are missing from lists.

>On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:40, Richard Damon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> You CAN still reply to the list from the private copy, you won't have a
>> 'Reply-to-List' opiton, because of the lack of list headers, but
>> 'Reply-All' will still work.
>>
>> It just becomes a bit harder to reply back JUST to the list. Your need
>> Reply-All and then editing the list of recipients.

On 23.11.20 16:30, @lbutlr wrote:
>Or you use procmail/Sieve to add a reply-to header to messages that have
> the mailing list email in the headers.

It's silly to set up procmail rule to remove "duplicate" message and then
set up rule to add headers to the mail that are missing in one of the
duplicates.

note that it's possible to Bcc: message to mailing list so it does not
contain list address in To:/Cc:

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [hidden email] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
"The box said 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so I bought a Macintosh".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 24.11.20 13:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>note that it's possible to Bcc: message to mailing list so it does not
>contain list address in To:/Cc:

... as this message clearly shows.

I set mailing lists not to avoid duplicate messages (and usually drop direct
mail).


However, this thread is off-topic. We should close it with conclusion:

don't avoid duplicate mail based on Message-Id:


--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [hidden email] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
In reply to this post by Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 24 Nov 2020, at 05:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 23.11.20 16:30, @lbutlr wrote:
>> Or you use procmail/Sieve to add a reply-to header to messages that have
>> the mailing list email in the headers.

> It's silly to set up procmail rule to remove "duplicate" message and then
> set up rule to add headers to the mail that are missing in one of the
> duplicates.

If you say so. I do not find it silly at all. The first eliminates unwanted and unneeded duplicate messages, the second puts messages where they belong. I see no reason to store duplicate messages, but I do want messages to the mailing list to be show with the other messages to the mailing list, and I often have to fix mailing lists so that the reply goes to the list anyway, so it's not even an extra step.

> note that it's possible to Bcc: message to mailing list so it does not
> contain list address in To:/Cc:

Depends on the mailing list, many (most? Some?) mailing lists reject messages if the list address is not in the To or CC.

--
A sadder and a wiser man he rose the morrow morn.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
In reply to this post by Bob Proulx
On 23 Nov 2020, at 23:51, Bob Proulx <[hidden email]> wrote:

> @lbutlr wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2020, at 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 11:49:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>>>
>>>> If someone replies to a mailing list and copies the sender then that
>>>> person gets two copies.  The above recipe avoids that.
>>
>>> Moreover, it breaks the continuity of threads on mailing lists, because it's
>>> unpredictable which copy will arrive first, and if only the direct copy is
>>> left, the reply will go only to the sender and not to the mailing list. Thus
>>> some messages are missing from lists.
>>
>> This is not accurate. First, the direct message almost certainly
>> arrives first. Second of all, that message still has headers
>> indicating it was sent to the mailing list.
>
> That is not accurate.

Of course it is accurate.

It will have the list address in the To or CC field.

> The most important of those are List-Id and List-Post without which
> the message will not be filed correctly

That is certainly not the case. It is COMMON to check list-id, but it is trivial to match messages based on the To and/or CC. ESPECIALLY if you have an email address that is used only for mailing lists, as I do. I never said the CCed message would cantina the list headers, only that it "still has headers indicating it was sent to the mailing list."

> and most mailers will not be able to list reply correctly.

Again, not at all accurate. This is all managed automatically by sieve and it used to be managed automatically by procmail.

> This puts the onus upon the receiver to manually take corrective action with the message.

Not at all.

>  That is something
> that I and probably most readers of this list can do.  But for most
> random people today they do not understand email and most people today
> do not have the skill to do this correctly.  For them it is simply
> completely broken.

When did we start talking about most people? We were talking about procmail recipes to eliminate duplicate messages. That already narrows the field to a tiny fraction of a percent of the people getting email.

>> We are talking about duplicated messages with the same
>> message-id. That is one message with multiple recipients. If they
>> were separate messages, they would have unique message-id headers.
>
> That is not accurate.

Yes it is accurate.

>  A single message to multiple recipients will
> have one Message-Id.  If you receive it by being the target of some of
> those multiple recipients then you will receive multiple copies of the
> message and all of the copies will have the same Message-Id.

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I said: "We are talking about duplicated messages with the same message-id. That is one message with multiple recipients."

--
*** AgentSmith sets mode: +m

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
In reply to this post by Bob Proulx
On 23 Nov 2020, at 23:55, Bob Proulx <[hidden email]> wrote:

> @lbutlr wrote:
>> Bob Proulx wrote:
>>> But so many people use Gmail these days that they have gotten used to
>>> the way Gmail does things.  And Gmail de-duplicates and saves the
>>> first message with any particular message-id that arrives.  And then
>>> displays a "mailbox" showing a view of the current tag being
>>> displayed.  It's a very different paradigm from having separate
>>> mailbox folders for different topics.
>>
>> I don't use Gmail much, but my primary sort criteria now is a series
>> of smart searches in Mail.app.
>
> I don't use Gmail at all.  But the people who do not use Gmail are in
> the minority.  It's the world we live in now.  I have to know how
> Gmail works even though I don't use it because almost everyone else
> around me uses it.

That's OK, most the people using gmail don't know how it works either.

"Why is this message in my Inbox when I tagged it as being 'Bank mail'?"

And that's an advanced gmail user who uses tags.

--
You are in my inappropriate thoughts

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
In reply to this post by Jaroslaw Rafa
On 24 Nov 2020, at 02:44, Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 16:29:13 @lbutlr pisze:
>>
>> This is not accurate. First, the direct message almost certainly arrives
>> first.
>
> Unless you use greylisting

That's a whole different issue and anyone using greylisting now I would never use for email. But it doesn’t matter which message arrives at my server first, the duplicate gets trashed and the first one goes where it should.

> I'm not talking about client getting confused about threading. I'm talking
> about the fact that when you get only an off-list message and reply to it,
> the reply goes only to the original sender and not to the list,

No, that is not the case. When I get a message from bob that was also sent to postfix-user several things happen.

First, the message has a reply-to: header added for the postfix list. All mailing lists get a reply-to header added with the list address.

Second, the message has a "X-List-name: postfix" added to it regardless of who sent it.

Then, on my client, all the messages that are "X-List-name: Postfix" and are not archived are shown in a smart mailbox.

> thus messages are missing from thread on the list (thread understood as an
> abstract concept, not a particular implementation in this or that client).

That's not how it works here, and not how it's worked here since I started using procmail in the late 90s, though now I use sieve.

--
"I can't see the point in the theatre. All that sex and violence. I
        get enough of that at home. Apart from the sex, of course." -
        Baldrick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Jaroslaw Rafa
Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 12:20:23 @lbutlr pisze:

> > I'm not talking about client getting confused about threading. I'm talking
> > about the fact that when you get only an off-list message and reply to it,
> > the reply goes only to the original sender and not to the list,
>
> No, that is not the case. When I get a message from bob that was also sent
> to postfix-user several things happen.
>
> First, the message has a reply-to: header added for the postfix list. All
> mailing lists get a reply-to header added with the list address.
>
> Second, the message has a "X-List-name: postfix" added to it regardless of
> who sent it.

Only the copy that went through the mailing list has those, because they are
added by the list management software and not by sender's email client. So
the copy that was sent off-list directly to you doesn't have any of them
(unless you add them yourself on your side uning eg. some filtering rule).
So, if the list copy comes first, the direct copy is deleted and everything
is ok. But if the direct copy comes first (and thus list copy is deleted),
it doesn't have those headers. So if you reply to it, the copy goes only to
Bob and not to list.
--
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   [hidden email]
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
On 24 Nov 2020, at 13:57, Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 12:20:23 @lbutlr pisze:
>>> I'm not talking about client getting confused about threading. I'm talking
>>> about the fact that when you get only an off-list message and reply to it,
>>> the reply goes only to the original sender and not to the list,
>>
>> No, that is not the case. When I get a message from bob that was also sent
>> to postfix-user several things happen.
>>
>> First, the message has a reply-to: header added for the postfix list. All
>> mailing lists get a reply-to header added with the list address.
>>
>> Second, the message has a "X-List-name: postfix" added to it regardless of
>> who sent it.
>
> Only the copy that went through the mailing list has those,

No.

Please re-read what I wrote.

--
"A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first
        thought of." - Burt Bacharach

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Jaroslaw Rafa
Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 14:37:13 @lbutlr pisze:
> > Only the copy that went through the mailing list has those,
>
> No.
>
> Please re-read what I wrote.

So, I looked through my archives and found an actual message from this
mailing list, that someone sent both to me and to list. Below are the actual
headers in their entirety - sorry for posting long uninteresting stuff to
the list, but seems there's no other way to demonstrate what I mean. :(

First the message that went through mailing list:

Return-Path: <[hidden email]>
X-Original-To: [hidden email]
Delivered-To: [hidden email]
Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net (russian-caravan.cloud9.net [168.100.1.4])
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
        (No client certificate requested)
        by rafa.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAECD40F06
        for <[hidden email]>; Sat,  6 Jun 2020 19:28:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix)
        id 7A5FC3426E0; Sat,  6 Jun 2020 13:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: [hidden email]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C793426DA
        for <[hidden email]>; Sat,  6 Jun 2020 13:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cloud9.net
Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net ([127.0.0.1])
        by localhost (russian-caravan.cloud9.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
        with ESMTP id vL9E6T48R-KU for <[hidden email]>;
        Sat,  6 Jun 2020 13:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix, from userid 54)
        id 543BE3426E2; Sat,  6 Jun 2020 13:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: [hidden email]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1974F3426E0
        for <[hidden email]>; Sat,  6 Jun 2020 13:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cloud9.net
Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net ([127.0.0.1])
        by localhost (russian-caravan.cloud9.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
        with ESMTP id 1cuf_UbXmvqQ for <[hidden email]>;
        Sat,  6 Jun 2020 13:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx.xenaura.com (mx.xenaura.com [104.131.165.124])
        by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA74A3426DA
        for <[hidden email]>; Sat,  6 Jun 2020 13:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sfina.com;
        s=201605sfinacom; t=1591464461;
        bh=sHbDD9R8M0N5Gew8gWUaOzwtex+Vk2SMhq9JdsEVnoU=;
        h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
        b=pAJkiG3foTHhzylRoqaz5Bb7AelBoUxN/HR+samlGKsfamdhL51Cfa63E/l2H4c9o
        /g1XmpfN1DSvpukkrH+HSRLNZSnMtaCwvy6xgJHN1TVukw8Kg4G1o3KHxjNsJK1PuR
        9YvQIagrGXSV1HVOyXxSWBpunNKSNgCejHTa4DBEhxkfuqEMBtyGm1ozF624cX5pDU
        PdQ1A+vi5ednV+mn4nchPHQMmihiClV7A23X2QXbAa/yHKs1WZmBRM9VNEQJNu1DS/
        DoGJiu0KLohLmS0aW7J7Mv6hvR+GSe8dU3WFCrfW4yMCLLtFST/VRENy/ZupFk8zUP
        Ds+mU6sfTat7g==
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
From: yuv <[hidden email]>
To: Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 13:27:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
References:
        <CABiY0=[hidden email]>
        <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [hidden email]
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Postfix users <[hidden email]>
List-Post: <mailto:[hidden email]>
List-Help: <http://www.postfix.org/lists.html>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[hidden email]>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[hidden email]>
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.5 tests=[LOCAL_PRECEDENCE_BULK=0.01,
        T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] bayes=0.0000 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on rafa
Content-Length: 1521

It does have the "List-Id:" header, it doesn't have "Reply-To:" as this
list, by the administrators' choice, does not set "Reply-To:" to the list.
But this list is specific, most lists set "Reply-To:" to the list address
and in that case the "Reply-To:" header would be there.

And then the copy that went directly to me:

Return-Path: <[hidden email]>
X-Original-To: [hidden email]
Delivered-To: [hidden email]
X-Greylist: delayed 453 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at rafa; Sat, 06 Jun 2020 19:35:19 CEST
Received: from mx.xenaura.com (mx.xenaura.com [104.131.165.124])
        by rafa.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A7740F06
        for <[hidden email]>; Sat,  6 Jun 2020 19:35:19 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sfina.com;
        s=201605sfinacom; t=1591464461;
        bh=sHbDD9R8M0N5Gew8gWUaOzwtex+Vk2SMhq9JdsEVnoU=;
        h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
        b=pAJkiG3foTHhzylRoqaz5Bb7AelBoUxN/HR+samlGKsfamdhL51Cfa63E/l2H4c9o
        /g1XmpfN1DSvpukkrH+HSRLNZSnMtaCwvy6xgJHN1TVukw8Kg4G1o3KHxjNsJK1PuR
        9YvQIagrGXSV1HVOyXxSWBpunNKSNgCejHTa4DBEhxkfuqEMBtyGm1ozF624cX5pDU
        PdQ1A+vi5ednV+mn4nchPHQMmihiClV7A23X2QXbAa/yHKs1WZmBRM9VNEQJNu1DS/
        DoGJiu0KLohLmS0aW7J7Mv6hvR+GSe8dU3WFCrfW4yMCLLtFST/VRENy/ZupFk8zUP
        Ds+mU6sfTat7g==
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
From: yuv <[hidden email]>
To: Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 13:27:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
References:
        <CABiY0=[hidden email]>
        <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.5 tests=[SPF_PASS=-0.001,
        T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] bayes=0.0000 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on rafa

Not any trace of mailing list-specific headers here. Even if the list would
set "Reply-To:", there will be no "Reply-To:" on this message, as it went
directly to me, bypassing the list.

If I were an average mail user and replied to this message (by using
"Reply", not "Reply all", how could I know that I should use "Reply all" if
"Reply" was always sufficient?), the reply will go only to the original
sender and never hit the list.

If I were the same average mail user (and this list were an average mailing
list, that sets "Reply-To:" to the list) and replied to the first message
(again using regular "Reply", not "Reply all"), the reply will go to the list.

That's the difference I'm talking about all the time.
--
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   [hidden email]
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
On 24 Nov 2020, at 15:08, Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 14:37:13 @lbutlr pisze:
>>> Only the copy that went through the mailing list has those,
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Please re-read what I wrote.
>
> So, I looked through my archives and found an actual message from this
> mailing list, that someone sent both to me and to list. Below are the actual
> headers in their entirety - sorry for posting long uninteresting stuff to
> the list, but seems there's no other way to demonstrate what I mean. :(

You could re-read what I wrote as I suggested instead of ignoring it completely and going off on some irrelevant tangent.

Here you go, with notes.

> When I get a message from bob that was also sent
> to postfix-user several things happen.

A message FROM BOB (as in not from the list)

> First, the message has a reply-to: header added for the postfix list. All

Note, the header is ADDED when I get a message FROM BOB.

> mailing lists get a reply-to header added with the list address.

Note, ALL messages directed to a mial list get a reply-to added when I receive them. Many mailing list do not set this header, or set the list up so that reply to user is the default.

> Second, the message has a "X-List-name: postfix" added to it regardless of
> who sent it.

Please not the word "added" and the phrase "regardless of who sent it"

> First the message that went through mailing list:

Note that the headers you include have NEITHER a reply-to header NOR an X-Listname header. Why? Because those are added BY MY MAILSERVER.

> To: Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]

[snip]

> Not any trace of mailing list-specific headers here.

Would you like to read the one header line I left intact and see it that might indicate the message was sent to a mailing list? Anything there? Anything at all?

> If I were an average mail user and replied to this message (by using

Not talking about average mail users, Never have been talking about average mail users. This started by mentioning that s lot of people using procmail setup their recipes to delete duplicate message. No average users use or ever used procmail.

> That's the difference I'm talking about all the time.

Here is the sieve block for this list, with comments so that maybe you will read what I wrote this time.

elsif anyof (header :contains "List-id" "postfix-users",
             address ["to", "cc"] "[hidden email]") {

# Anyof means it the message has EITHER the first OR the second header (or both).

   deleteheader "Reply-To";
   addheader "Reply-To" "[hidden email]";

# Adds the reply to header so that replies go to the list
# and removes any previous reply-to header.

   addheader "X-Listname" "postfix";

# Adds the header for my sorting routines

   fileinto :create "lists";
stop;}


--
Eliot: We'll figure it out. We always do.
Margo: When it's a test to cheat on. Not when we're stuck in some epic fantasy
       that likes to behead heroes halfway through season one. If we even are
       heroes. We might be comic relief.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Jaroslaw Rafa
Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 16:25:54 @lbutlr pisze:
>
> Note that the headers you include have NEITHER a reply-to header NOR an
> X-Listname header.  Why?  Because those are added BY MY MAILSERVER.
[...]
> Not talking about average mail users, Never have been talking about
> average mail users. This started by mentioning that s lot of people using
> procmail setup their recipes to delete duplicate message. No average
> users use or ever used procmail.

1) An average user does not use procmail, but their mail provider may
implement a de-duplication solution for them, without them even knowing -
Gmail has already been mentioned here in that context.

2) Even if someone uses procmail to de-duplicate messages, it does not imply
that they will also add additional headers like you do. Strictly speaking,
you do more than just de-duplication. You cannot assume that everybody who
uses procmail to de-duplicate mail does the same what you do.

That's the reason why I ignore the specifics of your setup and concentrate
on de-duplication in general. We are not talking about you specifically
here, we are talking on anybody that uses some solution that de-duplicates
messages based on Message-Id: header.

And without your specific setup, the problem does still exist, in both cases
mentioned above.
--
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   [hidden email]
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

@lbutlr
On 24 Nov 2020, at 17:23, Jaroslaw Rafa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That's the reason why I ignore the specifics of your setup and concentrate
> on de-duplication in general.

Interesting rationalization. But sure, have it your way.

--
'A man like that could inspire a handful of broken men to conquer a
        country.' 'Fine. Just so long as he does it on his day off.'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: empty message-ID

Peter Ajamian
In reply to this post by Wietse Venema
On 24/11/20 3:56 am, Wietse Venema wrote:

> Jaroslaw Rafa:
>> Dnia 23.11.2020 o godz. 10:18:39 D'Arcy Cain pisze:
>>>
>>> I used to have a client who was not getting emails from one of his
>>> friends.  Turned out that the friend's client/MUA was not adding the
>>> message ID.
>>
>> Doesn't Postfix automatically add Message-Id: header upon sending a message
>> if none is present?
>
> For the last 17 years, Message-ID is added to "local" email only.
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#always_add_missing_headers

Might want to clarify that in cleanup(8):

        The cleanup(8) daemon always performs the following transformations:

        ·      Insert missing message headers: (Resent-) From:, To:,
Message-Id:, and Date:.

...the explicit use of the word "always" there is misleading.


Peter
123