Re: mailman From rewriting [was perf jit: genelf makes assumptions about endian]

[Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>]

Hi Jeremy,

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:30:12 +0800 Jeremy Kerr <jk@ozlabs.org> wrote:
>
> >> Do you know why mailman would be re-writing From: there? It's confusing
> >> patchwork, as multiple mails are now coming from that address. =20
> >=20
> > Yep, Anton posts from samba.org.  They publish a DMARC policy that
> > breaks mailing lists. =20
>=20
> (=E2=95=AF=C2=B0=E2=96=A1=C2=B0)=E2=95=AF=EF=B8=B5 =E2=94=BB=E2=94=81=E2=
=94=81=E2=94=BB

Yes :-(

> This also breaks git-am:
>=20
>   [jk@pudge linux]$ git am incoming.eml
>   Applying: perf jit: genelf makes assumptions about endian
>   [jk@pudge linux]$ git log --format=3D'format:%an <%ae>' -1
>   Anton Blanchard via Linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>

Of course :-(

> > The best thing we can do is to do the above rewrite of the From header.=
 =20
>=20
> OK, it looks like we're stuck either way with DMARC. Could we make this
> a little more tolerable by stashing the original From: value in a new
> header? I know it's already in Reply-To, but that could also be set by
> arbitrary other (non-mailman-DMARC-rewrite) sources.
>=20
> Alternatively, if there's some other way to tell that this a mail has
> been rewritten, we can know to use Reply-To in preference to From.

Well, as Michael pointed out, the From header will have "via <list
name>" in it ... and also, the address part of the From header will be
the list address (unless people get even more creative with that
address).

> Otherwise, I guess we could require that *all patch submitters* put
> their From: line in the content of their mails, as git send-email does
> when user !=3D author. But that's a little less-than-optimal.

And hopeful :-)

--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell