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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 EC77A1F4C0 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726243AbfJKE3b (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:29:31 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:63605 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726099AbfJKE3a (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:29:30 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8952269F; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:29:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=m5MY8qHRZQiKWJtk4SRwY9Zmna0=; b=At5ZFT PaYoYIcCYn5eI1xePA3GL19BQYnItE4uiVBrXkr2YHn459YN8nZP1ZEiYahkjYf6 tOJCXJ3Xy2gfw+HVp7m7GAwndB+CZfE8oY5MZ4qLhchamlsRNgX1x91ucjxILLYJ tynzEXlZKktnoxQ141UNsDJKigkCeQwIAewf4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=g6qqbBzdb+0p5pxVk+plud4JePn6MBpe omA56cvDdSOgy535xvOkH85EERjS+Yt3aANoa+mUNq/dk6b5tK77muRACJHUj3mf H1VSFUByCbF1gxVFsdnr4Yfe7eS0EqQfnHUzccDIy3IdqXX+taTm95ji5CpjrXCz YiyYwg7V9Wk= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671492269E; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:29:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C68B22269D; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:29:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Andrew Donnellan , patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org, Stephen Rothwell , Alexandre Belloni , Eric Blake , Christian Schoenebeck , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] parser: Unmangle From: headers that have been mangled for DMARC purposes References: <20191010062047.21549-1-ajd@linux.ibm.com> <20191010194132.GA191800@google.com> <20191010225405.GA19475@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:29:26 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20191010225405.GA19475@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:54:06 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B6305472-EBDF-11E9-9A41-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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).