Your message dated Sat, 07 May 2016 10:39:28 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Bug#823412: fixed in bsd-mailx 8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #823412,
regarding [PATCH] bsd-mailx : -b option is not working
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
823412: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823412
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: bsd-mailx
Source-Version: 8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-2
Tags: patch
--
A previous upstream commit allowed to "Use sendmail's '-t' flag when
sendmail instead of specifying the list of recipients in argv." :
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/mail/send.c?rev=1.24&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
But a previous fix of Debian bug http://bugs.debian.org/75232 is based on the
fact
that bcc recipients is given to sendmail command.
So we end up not sending any mail to Bcc recipients.
I re-enabled Bcc recipient in the header, the upstream's way in spite of
comment in the bug 75232 :
"When using the "Bcc:" option using mailx, the line "Bcc: <address>" is
included in the outgoing message, which is forbidden by RFC841."
I only saw : https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc841#section-3.2.1
" Messages containing Bcc fields are treated specially by
CBMSs. The contents of this field are not included in copies of
the message sent to the recipients other than the originator who
are not included in the Bcc field itself. Some systems include
the contents of the Bcc field only in the originator's copy;
others include all or part of the Bcc field in the copies sent to
the recipients indicated in the Bcc field. This specification
does not indicate exactly how the Bcc field is to be treated."
I don't know what CBMS i.e. Computer-Based Message Systems includes. If that
includes
MTA, then we are good as MTA will delete the Bcc part of the header.
I see in http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/man/sendmail.html :
" -t Read message for recipients. To:, Cc:, and Bcc: lines will
be scanned for recipient addresses. The Bcc: line will be
deleted before transmission."
I guess postfix, exim, etc .. will behave based on that sendmail option
compatibility's sake.
Also, I added that patch on top of all other instead of updating
03-Base-fixes-2.patch
because, my quilt setup would not leave all other patches unchanged with
meta-information
modified.
Thanks for reviewing,
F.
diff -Nru bsd-mailx-8.1.2-0.20160123cvs/debian/patches/33-Fix-bcc.patch bsd-mailx-8.1.2-0.20160123cvs/debian/patches/33-Fix-bcc.patch
--- bsd-mailx-8.1.2-0.20160123cvs/debian/patches/33-Fix-bcc.patch 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ bsd-mailx-8.1.2-0.20160123cvs/debian/patches/33-Fix-bcc.patch 2016-05-04 14:54:02.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Description: Fix Bcc addresses not being used
+ A previous upstream commit allowed to "Use sendmail's '-t' flag when executing
+ sendmail instead of specifying the list of recipients in argv." . But the fix of
+ bug 75232 is based on the fact that bcc recipients is given to sendmail command.
+ So we end up not sending any mail to Bcc recipients. Re-enabling Bcc recipient, the
+ upstream's way.
+Author: Frederic Bonnard <[email protected]>
+Bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823407
+---
+This patch header follows DEP-3: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
+--- a/send.c
++++ b/send.c
+@@ -579,10 +579,8 @@
+ fprintf(fo, "Subject: %s\n", hp->h_subject), gotcha++;
+ if (hp->h_cc != NULL && w & GCC)
+ fmt("Cc:", hp->h_cc, fo, w&GCOMMA), gotcha++;
+-/* Should not put bcc into mails (Closes: Bug#75232)
+ if (hp->h_bcc != NULL && w & GBCC)
+ fmt("Bcc:", hp->h_bcc, fo, w&GCOMMA), gotcha++;
+-*/
+ if (hp->h_header != NULL && w)
+ fprintf(fo, "%s\n", hp->h_header), gotcha++;
+ if (hp->h_replyto != NULL && w & GREPLYTO)
diff -Nru bsd-mailx-8.1.2-0.20160123cvs/debian/patches/series bsd-mailx-8.1.2-0.20160123cvs/debian/patches/series
--- bsd-mailx-8.1.2-0.20160123cvs/debian/patches/series 2016-01-28 23:35:39.000000000 +0100
+++ bsd-mailx-8.1.2-0.20160123cvs/debian/patches/series 2016-05-04 14:54:21.000000000 +0200
@@ -29,3 +29,4 @@
30-Add-missing-includes.patch
31-Do-not-call-pledge.patch
32-Fix-FTBFS-on-Hurd.patch
+33-Fix-bcc.patch
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: bsd-mailx
Source-Version: 8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
bsd-mailx, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to [email protected],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Robert Luberda <[email protected]> (supplier of updated bsd-mailx package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [email protected])
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 09:33:20 +0200
Source: bsd-mailx
Binary: bsd-mailx
Architecture: source i386
Version: 8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Robert Luberda <[email protected]>
Changed-By: Robert Luberda <[email protected]>
Description:
bsd-mailx - simple mail user agent
Closes: 775766 823412
Changes:
bsd-mailx (8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* Make the `-b' option work again: update 03-Base-fixes-2.patch to revert
the `comment out bcc code' change introduced in 1:8.1.1-10.2. The change
is no longer needed after upstream switched to using the `-t' option
of sendmail in 8.1.2-0.20150408cvs-1 (closes: #823412, LP: #1576641).
Many thanks to Frederic Bonnard for finding the cause of the issue.
* debian/control:
+ refer to s-nail package in the description instead of transitional
heirloom-mailx (closes: #775766);
+ drop ancient Breaks/Replaces;
+ switch Vcs-Browser to cgit, and Vcs-Git to https;
+ bump Standards-Version to 3.9.8.
Checksums-Sha1:
79b09fe9b24f2be2ead8a1cbfa1a53eca2d736b7 1954
bsd-mailx_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3.dsc
f8282e161fcc6bfa3095099409bf45d695f00814 44244
bsd-mailx_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3.debian.tar.xz
e5cf9202a95760afed08b6d995c32ebb401fc9c6 95374
bsd-mailx-dbgsym_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3_i386.deb
68ef0389d05adf2d5b0c574802b55da989226ae9 91198
bsd-mailx_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3_i386.deb
Checksums-Sha256:
44d027f6c862fe978ab7746a06d23826166629d91b8cd3039fe34edbf4e33783 1954
bsd-mailx_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3.dsc
5d261a4c44a18037c240c34fc34a59cfa912fe080b670b0e6eea4476887ff523 44244
bsd-mailx_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3.debian.tar.xz
07ef9a75dc02b6c4d69a58162f5f0d215ccaaa560bcd4d373e45981546499125 95374
bsd-mailx-dbgsym_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3_i386.deb
e13de91dae8b7d8e155e38f65c010043f4e441845986676b8504c5c05532465f 91198
bsd-mailx_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3_i386.deb
Files:
e168d4575b161b414ac2e3602ea7f09f 1954 mail optional
bsd-mailx_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3.dsc
cb183547664cd5c698c403a4e4680d71 44244 mail optional
bsd-mailx_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3.debian.tar.xz
87300eb194dfce89ed50a9d3b8692c79 95374 debug extra
bsd-mailx-dbgsym_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3_i386.deb
947fe505a89ad5ecca293b5ed5648931 91198 mail optional
bsd-mailx_8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-3_i386.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=tH5l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
