IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Step backwards: <noreply@ietf.org>

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Tue, 12 March 2019 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B60124BA8 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JiCdaLu7-Mkj for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFF261200D7 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h-202-242.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([158.174.202.242]:61044 helo=tannat.localdomain) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1h3qgP-0002ph-LT; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:19:42 -0700
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
References: <186f4ff4-e31e-80c6-600f-9521694734f0@gmail.com>
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Message-ID: <656168f7-ed79-e19e-ea73-433cd9b49994@levkowetz.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:19:34 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <186f4ff4-e31e-80c6-600f-9521694734f0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JOGBAWJB2R7ta7XqrXD3vcOdckfMTGLhg"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 158.174.202.242
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tools-discuss@ietf.org, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/HQ5YmNo6oFe-ocFeuIWzYrS_adM>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Step backwards: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 23:19:45 -0000

Hi Brian,

On 2019-03-12 23:45, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I noticed that in the last few days, messages such as Gen-ART reviews
> generated by the tracker have From: fields like "John Doe via
> Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>".
> 
> This means that Reply won't work at all and Reply All will not
> include a direct copy to the reviewer (or other message originator).
> 
> This change wasn't announced, as far as I know. It's a bug as far as
> I'm concerned.
> 
> If the reason for this is that some mail systems treat the genuine
> sender's address as a forgery, OK, but then please generate a Cc:
> field for the original sender's address, so that at least Reply All
> will do the right thing.

The next datatracker release, which I hope to make tomorrow, will have
the Reply-To: header field set appropriately, using the reviewer or
AD email address which previously was used for the From: field.  

I believe this will make Reply and Reply All work as before, while still
avoiding the troubles we've seen from using a From: address that may
look like a forgery.

> If that isn't the reason, I believe this change should be reversed.

Understood.  Yes, this was the reason for the original change.  I hope
inclusion of the Reply-To: field will make this work better.


Regards,

	Henrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email