couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felipe Mafra <felipe.ma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: attn: listmaster - list issue
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:59:02 GMT
Miles,

In RFC 5322 on page 20 has a table with fields limits. reply-to can only be
used once. You cannot have it duplicated.

Felipe Mafra
Em 11/11/2014 18:14, "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> escreveu:

> Felipe Mafra wrote:
>
>> Miles,
>>
>> RFCs are these:
>>
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc6532.html
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc5322.html
>>
>
> close, but more like rfc5321 - the discussion on trace fields and
> implementation issues
> seems to be silent on whether duplicate reply-to fields are to be deleted,
> but I need to re-read in depth
>
>  But I'd like you to know that I am not seeing any duplicated field
>> *reply-to* in message header I received.
>>
>
> interesting - and I note that your message came through with only 1
> reply-to
>
> I'm seeing duplicate reply-to: in some messages, not others - and in
> particular I'm seeing them in all the gitub messages that are gatewayed to
> the list.
>
> And... I just looked in the archive, at, for example,
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/201411.mbox/browser
> there are definitely two reply-to headers in there (I marked the lines
> with *****()
>
> -------
> From dev-return-38501-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.
> apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Tue Nov  4 04:03:55 2014
> Return-Path: <dev-return-38501-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.
> apache.org@couchdb.apache.org>
> X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org
> Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org
> Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
>     by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2BA3417512
>     for <apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org>; Tue,  4 Nov 2014
> 04:03:55 +0000 (UTC)
> Received: (qmail 62850 invoked by uid 500); 4 Nov 2014 04:03:54 -0000
> Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org
> Received: (qmail 62780 invoked by uid 500); 4 Nov 2014 04:03:54 -0000
> Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@couchdb.apache.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@couchdb.apache.org>
> List-Post: <mailto:dev@couchdb.apache.org>
> List-Id: <dev.couchdb.apache.org>
> *****Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Received: (qmail 62769 invoked by uid 99); 4 Nov 2014 04:03:54 -0000
> Received: from tyr.zones.apache.org (HELO tyr.zones.apache.org)
> (140.211.11.114)
>     by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 04:03:54
> +0000
> Received: by tyr.zones.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 65534)
>     id 025E7A080A5; Tue,  4 Nov 2014 04:03:53 +0000 (UTC)
> From: benkeen <git@git.apache.org>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> ******Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> References: <git-pr-127-couchdb-fauxton@git.apache.org>
> In-Reply-To: <git-pr-127-couchdb-fauxton@git.apache.org>
> Subject: [GitHub] couchdb-fauxton pull request: Added getter/setter
> utils.js methods...
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Message-Id: <20141104040354.025E7A080A5@tyr.zones.apache.org>
> Date: Tue,  4 Nov 2014 04:03:53 +0000 (UTC)
>
> Github user benkeen commented on the pull request:
>
> https://github.com/apache/couchdb-fauxton/pull/127#issuecomment-61590748
>
>     haha :) I know what to do for your birthday: write more tests!
>
> ------------------
>
> Looks like the list handler is not removing reply-to headers that might
> have been inserted by the original sender.
>
> Miles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Felipe Mafra
>> felipe.mafra@gmail.com
>>
>> 2014-11-11 15:22 GMT-02:00 Miles Fidelman<mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>:
>>
>>  Ok.  As to whether others have problem - it really does depend on what
>>> there antispam/antivirus setup looks like.
>>>
>>> A little googling tells me that the standard Amavis antivirus considers
>>> multiple reply-to: lines as a "bad header" signature, and the standard
>>> configuration quarantines messages with bad headers.
>>>
>>> The work around, for me, is obviously to play with the antivirus
>>> configuration - but I think that Amavis only goes to the granularity of
>>> quarantining all or none of the various BAD HEADER checks it performs.
>>> Need to to a little research. I'm not sure I want to turn all of those
>>> off.
>>>
>>> I need to do some more research as to what is the RFC-compliant handling
>>> of reply-to: headers by mail forwarders, if there is indeed any such
>>> spec.
>>> It's pretty obvious that most list handlers and other forwarders either
>>> delete them or rewrite them to things like original-reply-to: (the
>>> issues I
>>> found by googling were mostly about things that broke when a piece of
>>> software, e.g., a particular Drupal release, started sending messages
>>> with
>>> duplicate reply-to: headers).
>>>
>>> Since this is a new behavior (unless I just wasn't noticing all that
>>> stuff
>>> going straight to trash), I wonder if apache.org has changed or updated
>>> its list or mail infrastructure.  What does this list run on top of?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy Wenk wrote:
>>>
>>>  I am a moderator of this list and I am not aware that listmaster is
>>>> known.
>>>> So if there are any issues it's ok to just write it here and a moderator
>>>> will take care if needed. And yes infra is short for infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if others do have the same issue with this list. If yes I will
>>>> take action :)
>>>> On Nov 11, 2014 5:18 PM, "Miles Fidelman"<mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Well, I cc'd listmaster and postmaster - or are there other contacts
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> use?  And what does INFRA stand for (infrastructure?).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Miles
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy Wenk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   The cool folks from apache who take care of everything related to the
>>>>>
>>>>>> infrastructure of all the apache projects and of the ASF itself 
:).
>>>>>> In
>>>>>> this case also the mailing lists ... Aka sysadmins ;-)
>>>>>> On Nov 11, 2014 5:00 PM, "Miles Fidelman"<mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Umm... who or what is INFRA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Andy Wenk wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I personally don't have this problem. But if others are faced
with
>>>>>>>> this, I
>>>>>>>> will report it to INFRA .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> On Nov 11, 2014 3:17 PM, "Miles Fidelman" <
>>>>>>>> mfidelman@meetinghouse.net
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Recently, I've been finding a lot of coucdb related email
>>>>>>>> traffic
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   spam folder. I think it's just the dev list, but I'm not
100%
>>>>>>>> sure of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> (I seem to recall this for other traffic, but intermittently,
and
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> latest batch is fine).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      On examination, I find that our local antivirus/antispam
>>>>>>>>> setup is
>>>>>>>>> reporting this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> X-Amavis-Alert:  BAD HEADER SECTION Duplicate header
field:
>>>>>>>>> "Reply-To"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is anybody else seeing this.  If yes, is perhaps the
list software
>>>>>>>>> misconfigured, perhaps following a patch to address DMARC
breakage?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message