Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs

Julien ÉLIE <> Wed, 05 October 2011 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED1411E80DB for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.739
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.408, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tk8kyooRiQK7 for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E5911E80C4 for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2458169 for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:36:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZeuNLEnMh36e for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:36:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro-de-Julien-Elie.local ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB9E78168 for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:36:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:36:28 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?SnVsaWVuIMOJTElF?= <>
Organization: TrigoFACILE --
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; fr; rv: Gecko/20110920 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IMA <>
References: <20111004014257.8027.qmail@joyce.lan> <> <34E8E4E5F1CBE344994E3F8B@PST.JCK.COM> <> <A48F698A08B601A60F5A9719@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <A48F698A08B601A60F5A9719@PST.JCK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:33:23 -0000

Hi John,

> If someone asked my opinion about whether a gateway should mess
> with Message-IDs, I'd say "no, unless it is absolutely required
> by the systems on the other end".  But lots of people don't ask
> and even fewer listen.   Neither RFC 5321/5322 nor RFC 5536
> offer any reciprocal guarantees.

RFC 5536 defines a stricter subset than RFC 5322 for Message-IDs; they 
therefore need being checked.  I agree with your saying that they should 
not be modified if they have a valid syntax for the system on the other end.

According to RFC 5537:

3.10.2.  Duties of an Incoming Gateway

    If there is a message identifier that fills a role similar to that of
    the Message-ID header field in news, it SHOULD be used in the
    formation of the message identifier of the news article, perhaps with
    transformations required to meet the uniqueness requirement of
    Netnews and with the removal of any comments so as to comply with the
    syntax in Section 3.1.3 of [RFC5536].  Such transformations SHOULD be
    designed so that two messages with the same identifier generate the
    same Message-ID header field.

       NOTE: Message identifiers play a central role in the prevention of
       duplicates, and their correct use by gateways will do much to
       prevent loops.  Netnews does, however, require that message
       identifiers be unique, and therefore message identifiers from
       other media may not be suitable for use without modification.  A
       balance must be struck by the gateway between preserving
       information used to prevent loops and generating unique message

Julien ÉLIE

« Rien, ce n'est pas rien ! La preuve, c'est que l'on peut le
   soustraire. Exemple : rien moins rien = moins que rien ! »
   (Raymond Devos)