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" <[email protected]> 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. > [email protected] Tue Nov 4 04:03:55 2014 > Return-Path: <dev-return-38501-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb. > [email protected]> > X-Original-To: [email protected] > Delivered-To: [email protected] > Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) > by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2BA3417512 > for <[email protected]>; 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: [email protected] > Received: (qmail 62780 invoked by uid 500); 4 Nov 2014 04:03:54 -0000 > Mailing-List: contact [email protected]; run by ezmlm > Precedence: bulk > List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> > List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> > List-Id: <dev.couchdb.apache.org> > *****Reply-To: [email protected] > Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > ******Reply-To: [email protected] > References: <[email protected]> > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [GitHub] couchdb-fauxton pull request: Added getter/setter > utils.js methods... > Content-Type: text/plain > Message-Id: <[email protected]> > 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 >> [email protected] >> >> 2014-11-11 15:22 GMT-02:00 Miles Fidelman<[email protected]>: >> >> 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"<[email protected]> >>>> 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"<[email protected]> >>>>>> 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" < >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >
