Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] format-patch: Transition the default to --from to avoid spoofed mails

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:47:24PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 12:11:05PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 
> > Josh Triplett (2):
> >   format-patch: Add a config option format.from to set the default for --from
> >   format-patch: Default to --from
> 
> By the way, I notice that the threading between your patches and cover
> letter are broken. Since I see you are also working on a tool for
> handling such things, I'd suspect the tool (or your workflow) has a bug.
> :)

My workflow, fortunately. :)

> The message-id of this message is:
> 
>   <20160730191104.2ps5k7eji7aqgufg@x>
> 
> but the patches have both "References" and "In-Reply-To" set to:
> 
>   <cover.4d006cadf197f80d899ad7d7d56d8ba41f574adf.1469905775.git-series.josh@joshtriplett.org>
> 
> I also see your MUA is mutt, and I think I saw you mention using "mutt
> -H" elsewhere. IIRC, when I started using a similar workflow years ago,
> I tried the same thing and had the same problem: "-H" treats the input
> file as a template, not a message, and thus generates a new message-id.
> 
> I switched to using mutt's internal "resend-message" function, which
> does a more literal re-send. I don't think I ever found a way to
> convince mutt to do a resend from the command line.

I actually tried using mutt's resend function (alt-e) with an mbox; I
checked the Message-Id and In-Reply-To headers, and they looked correct.
I've used mutt -H successfully before without breaking threads.  The
Debian mutt packages recently upgraded to the "neomutt" fork; I wonder
if something broke recently?

Thanks for letting me know; I'll investigate and try to figure out the
problem.

- Josh Triplett