P
Paul Gargan
Hi,
We're running Outlook 2003 SP3 on Windows XP Professional, SP3. We're seeing
an issue whereby some installations of Outlook are reusing Message-IDs when
sending messages. Specifically, in certain cases, if a user replies or
forwards a message, Outlook sends the message using the Message-ID of the
original message, rather than creating a new Message-ID.
The email accounts are Cyrus IMAP. Our imap daemon has a duplicate
suppression feature which drops any message whose Message-ID matches the
Message-ID of an email previously delivered to the given recipient. So when
Outlook decides to reuse the Message-ID of old messages, the emails get
deleted instead of delivered.
We're not sure why it only happens some users and not others. The
Message-IDs in question all have the form <!&!xxxx..xxxx@domainname> where
the !&! at the start is constant and the xxxx... is a sequence of what looks
like Base64 characters. Anyone know what MUA generates these, or how to make
Outlook behave correctly when it sees them?
Thanks,
Paul.
We're running Outlook 2003 SP3 on Windows XP Professional, SP3. We're seeing
an issue whereby some installations of Outlook are reusing Message-IDs when
sending messages. Specifically, in certain cases, if a user replies or
forwards a message, Outlook sends the message using the Message-ID of the
original message, rather than creating a new Message-ID.
The email accounts are Cyrus IMAP. Our imap daemon has a duplicate
suppression feature which drops any message whose Message-ID matches the
Message-ID of an email previously delivered to the given recipient. So when
Outlook decides to reuse the Message-ID of old messages, the emails get
deleted instead of delivered.
We're not sure why it only happens some users and not others. The
Message-IDs in question all have the form <!&!xxxx..xxxx@domainname> where
the !&! at the start is constant and the xxxx... is a sequence of what looks
like Base64 characters. Anyone know what MUA generates these, or how to make
Outlook behave correctly when it sees them?
Thanks,
Paul.