From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124E31F4C0 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726603AbfJKEgN (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:36:13 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:20126 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726187AbfJKEgM (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:36:12 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9B4RKC8185340 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:36:11 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vjdd0r8cy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:36:11 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 05:36:09 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.196) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 11 Oct 2019 05:36:05 +0100 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x9B4a4rK48431170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:36:04 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A62AE04D; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:36:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C88AE057; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:36:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ozlabs.au.ibm.com (unknown [9.192.253.14]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:36:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.61.2.125] (haven.au.ibm.com [9.192.254.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44F10A01C1; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 15:36:02 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] parser: Unmangle From: headers that have been mangled for DMARC purposes To: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King Cc: Jonathan Nieder , patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org, Stephen Rothwell , Alexandre Belloni , Eric Blake , Christian Schoenebeck , git@vger.kernel.org References: <20191010062047.21549-1-ajd@linux.ibm.com> <20191010194132.GA191800@google.com> <20191010225405.GA19475@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Andrew Donnellan Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 15:36:02 +1100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-AU Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19101104-4275-0000-0000-000003710E65 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19101104-4276-0000-0000-000038841823 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-10-11_02:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=836 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910110040 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 11/10/19 3:29 pm, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King 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