On 11/10/19 3:29 pm, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> 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).
It would be nice if Mailman could adopt X-Original-Sender too. As it is,
it adds the original sender to Reply-To, but in some cases (where the
list is set as reply-to-list, or has a custom reply-to setting) it adds
to Cc instead. (In the patch that started this thread, I match the name
from the munged From field against the name in Reply-To/Cc for the case
where there's multiple Reply-Tos/Ccs.)
For the Patchwork use case, I'm quite okay with accepting the risk of
using Reply-To, as the alternative is worse, the corner cases are rare,
and ultimately a maintainer can still fix the odd stuff-up before
applying the patch.
--
Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra
ajd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx IBM Australia Limited
