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 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
