From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8BCD19ABD8 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 08:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727771219; cv=none; b=G4sZVXtUDH2eYU9QL99ORS6JiNeSHmQlbQYbOvv9TjJWqWavAZliLM1J7J5fu4CFmhBugz9/2VKL09tSD3qgCIsbS05S24d81KS3pKFX60CpZCbgU5lVoMmCsDag6l6OAQUE0TUtCpWXCwe7X8R7fR9HjGrsiYoTFZXAmqqBhZE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727771219; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dZKqsnE8SeYG46zmreOGdU5TQ/EYytPZ+qm6/RDU/Gg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=VYBCa14CtVple2NjuYu/EItN9go03pnxwojeMsUU0BrKnT4a7p6JLahkAbgpwpLAgz3GLn7eAft7qB3a2vUiDqrfKomlbxN1tJs/FlIRFjsqcyhna1bM4f24FZz1pV4Q7pWClm7EyYiRBbtXKin82JR8DhT1FNy8WVubxPz3yhw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=lX0pF4Vf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="lX0pF4Vf" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) id 784E5C4CEC6; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 08:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A07CC4CECD for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 08:26:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 smtp.kernel.org 3A07CC4CECD Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1727771216; x=1759307216; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=dZKqsnE8SeYG46zmreOGdU5TQ/EYytPZ+qm6/RDU/Gg=; b=lX0pF4VfhH1rZ0uvax5mXAVfY9QDg8w42nD9YJcgIUm0Yf3zo/k8DRF4 EcXbY8ts9tHpSBMJSAqbB2nId/+Vwq5blmnAsuTp+ynIFi/KF/wkF2vmf XaUv9l9MFaLtVvv23MEwi3QXjrclFQqEnEZxfZInc5/7MZJ4KmLwTIrmK q2/0hsXhLdTlAXEjedjvLh0SYo/+S4RYRfFWlylAdrIirSocFtuvcs2Fp QZeurYlw73+d6Kd0StP4fkzCm5/4sJELWZe4Lixj2Waw9G5Wp2wAoyT1o QsaKzX+Qy4UycJzTFt2QUE5Yg4jFPjn2KUno/XHzFVrxFBCQabYB/3G92 A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: SASmHC8BSDeYSPUOsnHsBA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: hLbpZfTRR6ur6sffL2Bd9g== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11211"; a="30774123" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,167,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="30774123" Received: from fmviesa004.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.144]) by fmvoesa106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Oct 2024 01:26:29 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: MF5jHQMPQaaCkQfVUVK51w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: A3GpwWyZRb6tFaIh5ku0sQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,167,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="78118083" Received: from slindbla-desk.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.246.188]) by fmviesa004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Oct 2024 01:26:26 -0700 From: Jani Nikula To: Daniel Gomez , Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: I915-ci-infra@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, tools@kernel.org, d+samsung@kruces.com Subject: Re: Incorrect response address when using B4 In-Reply-To: <20240930211519.tquvjw7davr7zlfz@AALNPWDAGOMEZ1.aal.scsc.local> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20240930133007.u4vm5qj5urikpmvc@AALNPWDAGOMEZ1.aal.scsc.local> <20240930-sapphire-swift-of-reverence-168e2b@lemur> <20240930141839.3rjfom4c2tca655n@AALNPWDAGOMEZ1.aal.scsc.local> <20240930-rustling-auburn-jaguar-23d200@lemur> <20240930143309.pwl7dzv537b2q3wk@AALNPWDAGOMEZ1.aal.scsc.local> <87h69xw68b.fsf@intel.com> <20240930211519.tquvjw7davr7zlfz@AALNPWDAGOMEZ1.aal.scsc.local> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2024 11:26:12 +0300 Message-ID: <875xqcw7ob.fsf@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: tools@linux.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, 30 Sep 2024, Daniel Gomez wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 05:45:08PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024, Daniel Gomez wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:18:39PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote: >> >> > > Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients >> >> > > would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the >> >> > > relay. >> >> > >> >> > It was a CI Patchwork tool. Response [1] to my patch was sent from "From: >> >> > Patchwork ". >> >> > >> >> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/172735727458.1107233.1757281470637305143@2413ebb6fbb6/ >> >> > >> >> > I think that tool is ignoring the "Reply-To" field [2] from the B4 message and >> >> > using the From field. >> >> > >> >> > From: Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay >> >> > Reply-To: da.gomez@samsung.com >> >> >> >> It's no big deal as long as you got the email response in the end. We expect >> >> this to happen with a lot of automation, which is why any replies to the relay >> >> address are auto-discarded. >> > >> > To clarify, the email response didn't land into my inbox. I realized a response >> > was sent after checking at lore.kernel.org. >> >> Yeah, our patchwork instance tries not to spam everyone, and limits the >> replies to the submitter + intel-gfx/intel-xe mailing lists, but >> apparently uses From instead of Reply-To. > > I've just realized that it also happened with 0-day here: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240917-blktrace-algn-v1-1-9fb54b7b1dfa@samsung.com/#t > > The answer from 0-day went to the same wrong devnull B4 Relay address. > > And lore's git-send-email + mailto: Reply instruction section is using the wrong > address as well. I'm not sure why is the Reply instructions [1] section using > From instead of Reply-To? It's just that email is hard. It seems to be surprisingly difficult to follow the requirements of the relevant email RFCs to the letter, but also just by following the requirements or even recommendations of the RFCs won't give you the kind of interoperability you might expect. For example: - In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does not belong to the author(s) of the message. [1] - When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" field) or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it exists) MAY appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these would normally be the primary recipients of the reply. [2] I assume b4 is not using your address in From: because it's very likely to get the email classified as spam due to From: spoofing. Worse, it might get kernel.org on spam sender lists. Yet using Reply-To: in replies is completely optional. It's not required or even recommended, it's optional. I realize this does not really help you with the issue, but might help you adjust your expectations... BR, Jani. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2 [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3 -- Jani Nikula, Intel