Re: Have message-ID set by my email server rather than by Message

[rameiko87@posteo.net]

Dear Liman,

> Am I right in understanding it as "my host doesn't know its own 
> hostname (identity), so it's unable to create a useful Message-ID"?

Not sure, because my original problem was that Emacs or one of the 
components which intervene *locally* generate and introduce the 
Message-ID no matter the value of message-required-mail-headers. This is 
still unresolved. The underlying intellectual conundrum I think you 
summarize well:

> "Which entity (i.e., which device) should be responsible for adding the 
> Message-ID header to a message composed on a device which has little or 
> no notion of its own host identity, and in those cases what should the 
> Message-ID be?"

My device composes the message before posteo.de transmits it. What is my 
authority to use the formula xxxx@posteo.de in the Message-ID, 
especially because the mix of self-generated xxxx and official-looking 
@posteo.de looks intellectually confusing. Think of physical post: the 
post office will stamp the branch number and timestamp the envelope when 
they accept my parcel. posteo.de are charged with transmitting my email: 
it only sounds reasonable they would add the Message-ID, which is 
essentially hostname plus timestamp. Now one could make the case for the 
added freedom which comes with deciding the Message-ID of your own 
emails: but if the host can overwrite this anyway, then the benefit of 
the potential added privacy which comes from setting Message-ID at the 
MUA level is not guaranteed, but the drawback of having possibly same 
Message-ID's for different emails (sent through the same host or even 
distinct hosts) is real.

> I happen to know the author of the mail specification RFC, and I'm 
> thinking about asking him for his thoughts. Would you object to that?

I don't object.