From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 15682 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2020 18:10:58 -0000 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu (129.7.128.32) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 13 Dec 2020 18:10:58 -0000 Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1koVpg-0089IZ-Lw for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 12:10:56 -0600 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1koVpg-00H7Yt-4p for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 12:10:56 -0600 Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1koVpe-00H7Yl-7B for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 12:10:54 -0600 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1koVpc-00EJJj-FG for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 12:10:53 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=fCGOtdIUTLvUqLedAkOMdfzrFeIWOhySC5BorXRMON4=; b=FE2f80KePy5gDZPL6Z4TVnsBQv dFnecVG6ytc6N0qc6/aKPq0V2Oice2z59TY/oNUvJGb7gQ9OpPyk5jaWph2w7r/r2QWFFDsASNkBJ JgutuMgfrAiCrWkzpz3NPYNtd8nU9D8atTHZ2xfpvxIg6OcjndMZEgaqelRfGcc6ZV30=; Received: from w1.tutanota.de ([81.3.6.162]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1koVpV-00015C-QO for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 19:10:48 +0100 Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w1.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8540BFA0AFA; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 18:10:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1607883044; s=s1; d=tutanota.com; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender; bh=fCGOtdIUTLvUqLedAkOMdfzrFeIWOhySC5BorXRMON4=; b=uPhScTyFgcpT0hJuX9DKtDVp+zwGcyWVNxILOgSCpvnIsYhUgf/W91rGgkyVyLZw qOULGIrAi6kjO7zTfXVsc8ffAx26bbekENgfsZ6AmA8Oe9Rqv81IB05yvLqj5YvOR6x CaXHq2Ay8aoow4dkmOHcvRykbkfZYO9LzQRCv86B0lWKb2WyE4d/nMLWwIa3rNYkbiH NjY1b0zjq0jJCRCS0hg6WTCFVaRQ1n8p0M0epwXCqxudULwQUjTI28fN0XZ2F/9fdkb 86BEhRpggcmtM1J0c1Dmd9hT/GcLlr4fWWEy30Uul1rrUCteM9pkfEHXbLpAChyTEFg i8zZpRugMg== Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 19:10:44 +0100 (CET) From: yarnton@tutanota.com To: =?UTF-8?Q?Adam_Sj=C3=B8gren?= Cc: ding@gnus.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <877dpmab6s.fsf@tullinup.koldfront.dk> References: <877dpmab6s.fsf@tullinup.koldfront.dk> Subject: Re: mail-host-address and i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: Precedence: bulk > (The whole purpose of the Message-ID is to uniquely identify the > message! I guess you mean identifying... the sender? But that's also > done in From:, right? If you are thinking of identifying the machine > sending, then that is recorded in the Received headers as well, right?) > Sure, but identifying a message in a unique way does not require leaking unnecessary information about the host. That was my point. The vast majority of the email clients put something pretty non-unique on the right hand side of the Message-ID like @emailservice.com or @localhost.localdomain (literally). This still respects RFC 2822, as the left hand side of Message-ID is what makes the whole Message-ID likely to be unique. From: and my IP address can be fairly anonymous, but that is not useful if Message-ID leaks my exact domain. For example, say my localhost gets set to some local domain name that is quite representative of where I am by dhcpd e.g., lab21.bio.dtu.dk. I am inadvertendly leaking more or less who I am. An additional problem is that message-make-fqdn will concat the string ".i-did-not-set-mail-host-address--so-tickle-me" into Message-ID if it cannot construct a valid Message-ID. Gnus checks the Message-ID before sending, but other Emacs email clients do not. A different way of flagging an error might be more appropriate here. In other words, I think the logic inside the message-mode function message-make-fqdn is a bit outdated for today's Internet. Furthermore, returning a special value to flag an error is not playing very will with other Emacs email clients aside from Gnus, as these do not check for the presence of "[...]-tickle-me" to flag an error before sending an email, nor show the Message-ID header when composing a message.