Subject: Are these headers going to cause problems?

From: [email-masked] (Rolfe Tessem)
Date: 11 Aug 1995 15:35:25 GMT

I can't seem to get our domain name appended to the X-Sender: line, and
it also doesn't appear in the Message-ID:, as you can see below.

The From: line is fine, and sendmail seems to be behaving itself with
all other mail clients on the system. This is Pine 3.91 on a Next.

Are either of these going to cause problems, or is this strictly a
cosmetic issue?

Any hints greatly appreciated.
---
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rolfe Tessem <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: test test test

--
Rolfe Tessem        |     Lucky Duck Productions, Inc
[email-masked]       |     96 Morton Street
(212) 463-0029      |     New York, NY 10014

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 23:16:08 -0700

Your /etc/hosts.txt -- or, since you are on a NeXT, your NetInfo database
-- is incorrectly configured.  Look at the entry for the local host.  You
will see that "rosebud" appears before "rosebud.ldp.com".  You need to
reverse the order so that the full name appears first.

On 11 Aug 1995, Rolfe Tessem wrote:

> Received: from rosebud.ldp.com (rosebud.ldp.com [149.90.1.3]) by daffy.ldp.com (8.6.5/8.6.4.287) with ESMTP id LAA11187 for <[email-masked]>; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:17:27 -0400
> Received: from localhost (rolfe@localhost) by rosebud.ldp.com (8.6.5/8.6.4.788743) id LAA15789; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:15:20 -0400
> X-Sender: rolfe@rosebud
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Message-ID: <Pine.NXT.3.91.950811111506.15783A-100000@rosebud>
>                                                      ^^^^^^^^
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> --

-- Mark --

DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045  ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39"
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 23:18:19 -0700

> Are either of these going to cause problems, or is this strictly a

PS: I forgot to answer this.

It is strictly a cosmetic issue.  The X-Sender header is not an official
header, and is not subject to any rules.

The rules for the Message-ID header specify that the token to the right of
the "@" be a what RFC-822 calls a "domain".  This has misled some people
into thinking that a fully-qualified name must be specified, but in
reality it a since word without any dots is valid.

-- Mark --

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Aug 1995 08:02:00 GMT

>reality it a since word without any dots is valid.

Some of the the allegedly misled people were actually wondering how one
can ensure the required uniqueness of a Message-ID that has a simple
hostname on the right of the @ sign instead of a fully qualified domain
name.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 19:29:04 +0800 (GMT)

> hostname on the right of the @ sign instead of a fully qualified domain

	To quote RFC-822

     4.6.1.  MESSAGE-ID / RESENT-MESSAGE-ID

             This field contains a unique identifier  (the  local-part
        address  unit)  which  refers to THIS version of THIS message.
        The uniqueness of the message identifier is guaranteed by  the
        host  which  generates  it.  This identifier is intended to be
        machine readable and not necessarily meaningful to humans.   A
        message  identifier pertains to exactly one instantiation of a
        particular message; subsequent revisions to the message should
        each receive new message identifiers.

	unquote.

	It says *nothing* about world uniqueness.  Note also the phrase
"refers to *THIS* version of *THIS* message".  In never states anything
about *ALL* messages.

	Indeed, later in the RFC this example is given:

     Message-ID: <4231.629.XYzi-What@Other-Host>

	I would think this should clear up any misunderstanding.

	Regards,

					Ed
	
Edward M. Greshko                       Technical Manager, Electronic Commerce
                                        Control Data Asia/Pacific Region
Voice: +886-2-715-2222 x287             6/F, 131 Nanking East Road, Section 3
FAX  : +886-2-712-9197                  Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:19:32 GMT

>	It says *nothing* about world uniqueness.

I believe that the BNF, which includes the line:

   msg-id      =  "<" addr-spec ">"            ; Unique message id

settles the issue. 

1. The comment 'Unique message id' is clear.  

2. It is clearly the intent of RFC822 that any message crossing domain
   boundaries should use a sufficiently qualified domain name in the
   addr-spec.  I see no exception to this rule for message-ids.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 19:29:17 +0800 (GMT)

>    msg-id      =  "<" addr-spec ">"            ; Unique message id

	Sure.....if you don't read and understand the rest of the RFC.

	Anyway, this is not a pine issue, more like an ietf-822 issue
....so off pine list.

	I wouldn't have put this on the pine list either...but my
direct message from yesterday is still in the output queue.

							Ed