Re: [PATCH] parser: Unmangle From: headers that have been mangled for DMARC purposes

[Andrew Donnellan <ajd@linux.ibm.com>]

On 11/10/19 3:29 pm, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
>> This might provide an alternate solution (or vice versa). I kind of like
>> this one better in that it doesn't require the sender to do anything
>> differently (but it may be less robust, as it assumes the receiver
>> reliably de-mangling).
> 
> I share the assessment.  I also feel that relying on Reply-To: would
> make the result a lot less reliable (I do not have much problem with
> the use of X-Original-Sender, though).
> 

It would be nice if Mailman could adopt X-Original-Sender too. As it is, 
it adds the original sender to Reply-To, but in some cases (where the 
list is set as reply-to-list, or has a custom reply-to setting) it adds 
to Cc instead. (In the patch that started this thread, I match the name 
from the munged From field against the name in Reply-To/Cc for the case 
where there's multiple Reply-Tos/Ccs.)

For the Patchwork use case, I'm quite okay with accepting the risk of 
using Reply-To, as the alternative is worse, the corner cases are rare, 
and ultimately a maintainer can still fix the odd stuff-up before 
applying the patch.

-- 
Andrew Donnellan              OzLabs, ADL Canberra
ajd@linux.ibm.com             IBM Australia Limited