When people email each other, they generally include the original email in their reply to a sender, adding a little more information each time to the email. Each email client seems to have a different way of adding the original email to a reply.
I need to parse email arriving at our mail server and try and extract the new part of the message, and I'm wondering if there is a sensible way to strip this appended (or prepended) information (the "original message") and just get the new information in a mail body? I believe sadly, that there is no encoding, the original email is simply added to the new message, but I thought I'd check with the experts?
thanks.
No, there is no simple, straightforward algorithm to separate quoted or forwarded text from new content. Quoting and forwarding are poorly standardized and different conventions have existed at different times.
Having said that, e.g. Google's Gmail succeeds fairly well in practice. With enough samples, you can clearly come up with reasonable heuristics.
Good indicators for quoted material are forwarded (pseudo-) headers and indented text, perhaps with a quote indicator along the left margin before the quoted text. You occasionally see outdents as well.
Traditionally, on Usenet in the early 1990s, people would use different, unique quoting styles.
: ~ | This seems to be the original.
: ~ This is the first reply.
: This is the second reply.
This is the third reply, quoting the
previous three messages in sequence.
Around 1995, both clients and standardization initiatives by and large converged on "wedge" quotes;
> >> This seems to be the original.
> > This is the first reply.
> This is the second reply.
This is the third reply, quoting the
previous three messages in sequence.
Then along came Microsoft and ruined it all. I suppose that top quoting makes sense in some corporate settings where you quickly need to collect all the background from a thread to a new participant, but even for that purpose it's a horrible abomination.
This is the third reply, quoting the
previous three messages in sequence.
---- Begin forwarded message ----
From: Him [smtp:bogus]
To: His Friend
Subject: VS: Re: Same as on this message
Date: nothing machine-readable
This is the second reply.
---- Alkuperäinen viesti ----
Lähettäjä: His Friend [smtp:poppycock]
Saaja: Some Guy
Aihe: Re: Same as on this message
Päivämäärä: olisiko eilen ehkä
This is the first reply.
----- Original message ----
From: Somebody Else [smtp:mindless]
To: Some Guy
Subject: Same as on this message
Date: like, the day before
This seems to be the original.
Related
After I started sending emails with Amazon SES, the "status" messages that my system sends don't look as nice as before.
Since then, the body of the email is crammed together on one line. Previously, the text was separated into nice little paragraphs for easy reading.
Example:
Hello, you have a status message from the zzz server today:
The server is not down.
Action required: Get a coffee
And now:
Hello, you have a status message from the zzz server today:The server is not down.Action required: Get a coffee
My system generates plain text for the body, using Visual Studio's Environment.Newline method to specify a new paragraph. (I believe this is equivalent to vbcrlf) Previously, using good old SMTPClient, that was generating email bodies the way I wanted.
How have I tried to get a solution?
One solution I have thought of would be to carefully encode each of these "status" messages in pure HTML. If necessary, I guess I will do that work, but it would involve a large amount of coding to ensure that all email bodies were pure html. I would rather find a simpler solution.
I see information on MimeKit.Text.Converter, and I am willing to invest time into using that, but this converter refers only to converting Flowed text, and I have had trouble discovering what that means.
If anyone can show me a simple way to convert a plain text email body into a basic html body, it would really make my day!
I this is probably a strange question, but I thought I'd go ahead and ask. Say, I send an email, using IMAP SMTP, through a special client. This client adds a few custom headers to the email message before sending it on its way. The recipient receives this email and responds to me directly (and maybe CC's a few people as well).
My question is this: Given the above example, would these X-headers persist throughout all the new messages within the thread?
One thing I can think of is the client would be aware of the original email message it sent. All subsequent responses to this email would have a "Reply-To" header whose value equals the "Message-Id" of the previous email. I don't see why I couldn't crawl up these thread of replies until I get to the original message sent by the client, thereby deriving the original custom headers.
Maybe I'm over-thinking this. Any suggestions? :)
A message reply does not necessarily contain anything of the original message. The MUA is likely to suggest a modified (e.g. prepended with "Re:") version of the original subject, and obviously the addresses are utilised for appropriate defaults as well. None of the other content of the message forms part of the reply (unless the sender deliberately includes it, as with quoting or forwarding). Any X- headers that you have in your message will certainly not be included in the reply (unless you have control over that MUA).
However, your plan of tracking the original message is certainly feasible: see Section 3.6.4 of RFC 5322. Every message should (not must) have a Message-ID header, and should have In-Reply-To and References headers when appropriate.
The "Message-ID:" field contains a single unique message identifier. The "References:" and "In-Reply-To:" fields each contain one or more unique message identifiers, optionally separated by [whitespace].
In-Reply-To is mention to identify the message (or messages) that is (are) being replied to, while References identifies the entire thread of conversation. The References header is meant to contain the entire contents of the References header of the message being replied to, so you only need the last message to identify the entire thread.
Note that In-Reply-To and Reply-To are not the same thing (the latter specifies the address that the sender wishes replies to be sent to).
Assuming that you have the original message, then you should be able to use the References header of any reply to identify the original message. Not every MUA will handle References or In-Reply-To correctly, but most will.
As far as I know, there's no reason to think any email client would propagate any header lines it doesn't understand. Most will preserve the subject (usually adding "Re: " if necessary) and derive their "To: " and "Cc: " lines from the previous message's headers, but that's about it. I suppose some (but not all) will generate an "In-Reply-To" line, but that's as far as it goes.
Your idea of having a client crawl back through the thread looking for specific headers sounds like it might be do-able, but you'd have to write your own email client if you want that feature, and you'd still be blocked by the fact that not all email clients preserve message threading in any way.
I am currently extending an e-mail system with an autoresponse feature. In a dark past, I've seen some awesome mail loops, and I'm now trying to avoid such a thing from happening to me.
I've looked at how other tools ('mailbot', 'vacation') are doing this, grepped my own mail archive for suspicious mail headers, but I wonder if there is something else I can add.
My process at this point:
Refuse if sender address is invalid (this should get rid of messages with <> sender)
Refuse if sender address matches one of the following:
'^root#',
'^hostmaster#',
'^postmaster#',
'^nobody#',
'^www#',
'-request#'
Refuse if one of these headers (after whitespace normalization and lowercasing) is present:
'^precedence: junk$',
'^precedence: bulk$',
'^precedence: list$',
'^list-id:',
'^content-type: multipart/report$',
'^x-autogenerated: reply$',
'^auto-submit: yes$',
'^subject: auto-response$'
Refuse if sender address was already seen by the autoresponder in the recent past.
Refuse if the sender address is my own address :)
Accept and send autoresponse, prepending Auto-response: to the subject, setting headers Precedence: bulk and Auto-Submit: yes to hopefully prevent some remote mailer from propagating the autoresponse any further.
Is there anything I'm missing?
In my research so far I've come up with these rules.
Treat inbound message as autogenerated, ignore it and blacklist the sender if...
Return-Path header is <> or missing/invalid
Auto-Submitted header is present with any value other than "no"
X-Auto-Response-Suppress header is present
In-Reply-To header is missing
Note: If I'm reading RFC3834 correctly, your own programs SHOULD set this, but so far it seems some autoresponders omit this (freshdesk.com)
When sending outbound messages, be sure to...
Set the Auto-Submitted: auto-generated header (or auto-replied as appropriate)
Set your SMTP MAIL FROM: command with the null address <>
Note some delivery services including Amazon SES will set their own value here, so this may not be feasible
Check the recipient against the blacklist built up by the inbound side and abort sending to known autoresponders
Consider sending not more than 1 message per unit time (long like 24 hours) to a given recipient
Notes on other answers and points
I think ignoring Precedence: list messages will cause false positives, at least for my app's configuration
I believe the OP's "auto-submit" rule is a typo and the official header is Auto-Submitted
References
RFC3834
This SO question about Precedence header has several good answers
Wikipedia Email Loop Article
desk.com article
Comments welcome and I'll update this answer as this is a good question and I'd like to see an authoritative answer created.
Update 2014-05-22
To find if an inbound message is an "out-of-office" or other automatic reply, we use that procedure:
First, Find if header "In-Reply-To" is present. If not, that is an auto-reply.
Else, check if 1 of these header is present:
X-Auto-Response-Suppress (any value)
Precedence (value contains bulk, or junk or list)
X-Webmin-Autoreply (value 1)
X-Autogenerated (value Reply)
X-AutoReply (value YES)
Include a phrase like "This is an automatically-generated response" in the body somewhere. If your message body is HTML (not plain text) you can use a style to make it not visible.
Check for this phrase before responding. If it exists, odds are good it's an automated response.
I am working on a more complete email validator in java and came across an interesting ability to embed comments within an email both in the "username" and "address" portions.
The following snippet from http://www.dominicsayers.com/isemail/ has this to say about comments within an email.
Comments are text surrounded by parentheses (like these). These are OK but don't form part of the address. In other words mail sent to first.last#example.com will go to the same place as first(a).last(b)#example(c).com(d). Strange but true.
Do emails like this really exist ?
Is it possible to form hosts like this ?
I tried entering an url such as "google(ignore).com" but firefox and some other browsers failed and i was wondering is this because its it wrong or is it because they dont know about host name comments ?
That syntax -- comments within an addr-spec -- was indeed permissible by the original email RFC, RFC 822. However, the placement of comments like you'd like to use them was deprecated when that RFC was revised by RFC 2822... 10 years ago. It's still marked as obsolete in the current version, RFC 5322. There's no good excuse for emitting anything using that syntax.
Address parsers are supposed to be backwards-compatible in order to cover all conceivable cases, including 10-years-deprecated bits like the one you're trying to take advantage of here. But I'll bet that many, many receiving mail agents will fail to properly parse out those comments. So even though you may have technically found a loophole via the "obsolete addressing" section of the RFC, it's not likely to do you much good in practice.
As for HTTP, the syntax rules aren't the same as email syntax rules. As you're seeing, the comment section from RFC 822 isn't applicable.
Just because you can do it in the spec, doesn't mean that you should. For example, Gmail will not accept that comment format for address.
Second, (to your last point), paren-comments being allowed in email addresses doesn't mean that they work for URLs.
Finally, my advice: I'd tailor the completeness of your validator to your requirements. If you're writing a new MTA (mail transfer agent), you'll probably have to do it all. If you're writing a validator for a user input, keep it simple:
look for one #,
make sure you have stuff before (username) and after (domain name),
make sure you have a "dot" in the hostname string,
[extra credit] do a DNS lookup of the hostname to make sure it resolves.
I was wondering if anyone knew how the thread-index field in email headers work?
Here's a simple chain of emails thread indexes that I messaged myself with.
Email 1 Thread-Index: AcqvbpKt7QRrdlwaRBKmERImIT9IDg==
Email 2 Thread-Index: AcqvbpjOf+21hsPgR4qZeVu9O988Eg==
Email 3 Thread-Index: Acqvbp3C811djHLbQ9eTGDmyBL925w==
Email 4 Thread-Index: AcqvbqMuifoc5OztR7ei1BLNqFSVvw==
Email 5 Thread-Index: AcqvbqfdWWuz4UwLS7arQJX7/XeUvg==
I can't seem to say with certainty how I can link these emails together. Normally, I would use the in-reply-to field or references field, but I recently found that Blackberrys do NOT include these fields. The only include Thread-Index field.
They are base64 encoded Conversation Index values. No need to reverse engineer them as they are documented by Microsoft on e.g. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms528174(v=exchg.10).aspx and more detailed on http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee202481(v=exchg.80).aspx
Seemingly the indexes in your example doesn't represent the same conversation, which probably means that the software that sent the mails wasn't able to link them together.
EDIT: Unfortunately I don't have enough reputation to add a comment, but adamo is right that it contains a timestamp - a somewhat esoteric encoded partial FILETIME. But it also contains a GUID, so it is pretty much guarenteed to be unique for that mail (of course the same mail can exist in multiple copies).
There's a good analysis of how exactly this non-standard "Thread-Index" header appears to be used, in this post and links therefrom, including this pdf (a paper presented at the CEAS 2006 conference) and this follow-up, which includes a comment on the issue from the evolution source code (which seems to reflect substantial reverse-engineering of this undocumented header).
Executive summary: essentially, the author eventually gives up on using this header and recommends and shows a different approach, which is also implemented in the c-client library, part of the UW IMAP Toolkit open source package (which is not for IMAP only -- don't let the name fool you, it also works for POP, NNTP, local mailboxes, &c).
I wouldn't be surprised if there are mail clients out there which would not be able to link Blackberry's mails to their threads. The Thread-Index header appears to be a Microsoft extension.
Either way, Novell Evolution implements this. Take a look at this short description of how they do it, or this piece of code that finds the thread parent of a given message.
I assume that, because the lengths of the Thread-Index headers in your example are all the same, these messages were all thread starts? Strange that they're only 22-bytes, though I suppose you could try applying the 5-bytes-per-message rule to them and see if it works for you.
If you are interested in parsing the Thread-Index in C# please take a look at this post
http://forum.rebex.net/questions/3841/how-to-interprete-thread-index-header
The snippet you will find there will let you parse the Thread-Index and retrieve the Thread GUID and message DateTime. There is a problem however, it does not work for all Thread-Indexes out there. Question is why do some Thread-Indexes generate invalid DateTime and what to do to support all of them???