[Users] Message-ID

[Holger Berndt]

On So, 03.02.2013 14:16, Rich Pieri wrote:

>> That's not how I understand RFC 2822 (section 3.6 limits the maximum
>> number of message-id fields to 1).
>
>There are two problems in section 3.6.4. The first is that it states
>up front that Message-ID is optional. The second is that the second
>paragraph fails to use MUST when defining the field. Put these two
>faults together and you can justify putting anything you want in the
>Message-ID field or entirely omit it without breaking spec. Doing so is
>annoying, obnoxious, and downright unfriendly but it isn't technically
>wrong according to the RFC.

That's all nice and all, but if you hadn't stripped the quote you'd have
realized that I questioned something entirely different: The validity
of multiple message-id fields in a single message. And indeed, the spec
makes it quite obvious that this was a wrong claim.

Holger