On 10/15/21 3:19 AM, Philip Colmer wrote:
I'm not sure that the message ID identifies the author, does it?
No, but it identifies the message, and while Mailman has made some cosmetic modifications to the headers, it is still the same message.
I've just done a quick test of sending myself an email and then replying to it.
The original email has a message ID of CAKTSSThxADLoO=Cy5cNzHoihGb5dYbmB0iw_ThTqe9T9At9efw@mail.gmail.com
In the reply, the following headers are present:
References: <CAKTSSThxADLoO=Cy5cNzHoihGb5dYbmB0iw_ThTqe9T9At9efw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAKTSSThxADLoO=Cy5cNzHoihGb5dYbmB0iw_ThTqe9T9At9efw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAKTSSTh-Fgy63MbDQtWS=oPCw0kGxTmj5RxRe6r1U0W=Die4mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Would it be reasonable for Mailman 3 to use "References:" to keep the original Message ID and then add a new Message ID?
No, because the message from the list is not a reply to the incoming message. It is the incoming message.
I think that what Mailman 3 is doing is similar to forwarding the email. If I forward an email, again the headers change:
If you want Mailman to 'forward' the message, set DMARC mitigation action to wrap the message.
The IETF has addressed the issue of non-identical but equivalent messages with the Resent-Message-ID field (and in general the whole suite of Resent-* fields.
Mailman doesn't appear to be adding that header. Would that be an acceptable solution instead of the one I suggested above?
Mailman doesn't add the header, but even if it did, I doubt it would solve the problem with Gmail.
I appreciate your view that Google is broken. I'm just trying to find an acceptable solution to the end-user perception of "I've sent an email to the list but I haven't received a copy back". That is going to be a big issue/headache for us.
It's a long standing PITA with Google. See <https://wiki.list.org/x/4030680>. Your Gmail users can partially mitigate this by setting their Acknowledge posts option to Yes.
Note also that Mailman core communicates with archivers to determine what goes in the Archived-At: header and this value is usually based on the Message-ID:. Changing the Message-ID: could possibly render that value incorrect.
-- Mark Sapiro <mark@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan