From: Andrew Donnellan Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:36:02 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] parser: Unmangle From: headers that have been mangled for DMARC purposes Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 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