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

On 12/10/19 2:51 am, Jeff King wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:42:49AM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote: where a possible solution was to get senders to use in-body From headers even when sending their own patches. [...] I'm not sure this solution is correct. If I take a patch from Andrew,

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

Christian Schoenebeck writes: > 4. MTA's should also address this DKIM issue more accurately. I agree that Exim should be changed as you suggest. > > By taking these things into account, emails of domains with strict DMARC > policies are no longer munged on gnu lists. Additional info:

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

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:42:49AM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote: > >> where a possible solution was to get senders to use in-body From > >> headers even when sending their own patches. > [...] > I'm not sure this solution is correct. > > If I take a patch from Andrew, backport it, and send to the

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

On Freitag, 11. Oktober 2019 06:50:14 CEST Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 11/10/19 3:36 pm, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > It would be nice if Mailman could adopt X-Original-Sender too. As it is, > > (which I have gone ahead and reported as > https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/issues/641) Not

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

Hi, >> Neat. There was discussion on a similar issue recently in: >> >> >> https://public-inbox.org/git/305577c2-709a-b632-4056-658277117...@redhat.com/ >> >> where a possible solution was to get senders to use in-body From >> headers even when sending their own patches. > > I think that's

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

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

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

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:41:32PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Add support for using the X-Original-Sender or Reply-To headers, as used by > > Google Groups and Mailman respectively, to unmangle the From header when > > necessary. > [...] > Interesting! I'm cc-ing the Git mailing list in

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

On 11/10/19 3:36 pm, Andrew Donnellan wrote: It would be nice if Mailman could adopt X-Original-Sender too. As it is, (which I have gone ahead and reported as https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/issues/641) -- Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra a...@linux.ibm.com

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

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).

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

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:01:23AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > 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 > >

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

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 10:16:40 +1100 Daniel Axtens wrote: > > Andrew Donnellan writes: > > > On 11/10/19 6:41 am, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> Interesting! I'm cc-ing the Git mailing list in case "git am" might > >> wnat to learn the same support. > > Argh, that reminds me... this patch only

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

Andrew Donnellan writes: > On 11/10/19 6:41 am, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Interesting! I'm cc-ing the Git mailing list in case "git am" might >> wnat to learn the same support. > Argh, that reminds me... this patch only rewrites the name and email > that is recorded as the Patchwork submitter,

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

On 11/10/19 9:54 am, Jeff King wrote: Neat. There was discussion on a similar issue recently in: https://public-inbox.org/git/305577c2-709a-b632-4056-658277117...@redhat.com/ where a possible solution was to get senders to use in-body From headers even when sending their own patches. I

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

On 11/10/19 6:41 am, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Interesting! I'm cc-ing the Git mailing list in case "git am" might wnat to learn the same support. Argh, that reminds me... this patch only rewrites the name and email that is recorded as the Patchwork submitter, it doesn't actually rewrite the

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

Hi, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > To avoid triggering spam filters due to failed signature validation, many > mailing lists mangle the From header to change the From address to be the > address of the list, typically where the sender's domain has a strict DMARC > policy enabled. > > In this case, we

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

To avoid triggering spam filters due to failed signature validation, many mailing lists mangle the From header to change the From address to be the address of the list, typically where the sender's domain has a strict DMARC policy enabled. In this case, we should try to unmangle the From header.