On 3/3/20 7:47 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > I think we should check if this is the same in Mailman 3, and change > it if it is. If we have an attribute whose main function is to > populate a header field, it should accept any valid value for that > field (POLA). Unless there's a Very Good Reason[tm], in which case > "Errors should never pass silently." :-)
I just filed <https://gitlab.com/mailman/mailman/issues/689> for this. It suggests parsing the explicit reply to address with email.utils.getaddresses instead of email.utils.parseadder. Arguably, it shouldn't parse it at all and just copy it, but this creates potential issues if we aren't first stripping the original Reply-To: or if we're adding other items to Reply-To: due to DMARC mitigation. -- Mark Sapiro <m...@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list -- mailman-developers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-developers-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-developers.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: https://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: https://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
