Re: [PATCH] pgarchives: parser: handle messages in which Message-ID is missing

On 11/4/21 10:07 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:47 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org 
> <mailto:alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 2021-Nov-04, Célestin Matte wrote:
> 
>      > > I don't think this should be the responsibility of pglister. As you
>      > > say, "most MTAs do add this field" -- and the solution is to
>      > > configure the MTA to do this. We already rely on the MTA to get a
>      > > lot of other important things right.
>      >
>      > But then these messages will get delivered by pglister but pgarchives
>      > will fail to archive them, although they do not actually break
>      > requirements. Shouldn't we follow the RFC here?
> 
> 
> I agree that the scenario is a problem, per below.  I don't agree that 
> making up an id is a solution to that problem.
> 
> 
>     Maybe pglister should refuse to deliver messages that don't contain
>     a Message-Id.
> 
> 
> It should. I actually thought it did already, but apparently it does 
> not. I guess we've only ever used it under properly configured MTAs :)
> 
> Have you actually come across any case where a *proper* non-spam message 
> is sent without a message-id and passes through actual mailservers on 
> the way?
> 
> Looking through the approximately 1.4 million mails in the postgres list 
> archives, not a single one has a message-id generated by the archives 
> server MTA (which is configured to generate it). Not a single one by our 
> inbound relay servers. And exactly one by the pglister server -- which 
> turns out to be a bounce that ended up in the archives because of a 
> misconfiguration back in 2018 that's not visible in the public archives.

as mentioned down-thread by Justin Clift we have been plain rejecting 
mails without a message-id on the postgresql.org inbound relays since 
March 27th 2012(!) according to our repo and the number of rejects due 
to that rule is actually not-insignificant (approximately 200-400/day 
with the majority being for a very small number of bounce generating 
senders) but the number of complaints is also approaching (almost) zero.

So the reason why pglister is not seeing them a lot is because we dont 
accept them upstream, not that they dont exist in the wild...

Though the ones in the wild seem to be "not very useful"...



Stefan

Stefan