On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 09:35:27AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 08:37:41AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Now, if we had a way to send and receive upstream patches via a web
site, that would actually make things easier.
Alas, for those corporations who choose to enable DMARC in hard-fail
mode (which includes google.com BTW, although thankfully, not
gmail.com) sending (from DMARC's perspective, "forging") e-mail from
someone at that particular domain won't work unless it comes from an
authorized e-mail server.
This is not a huge deal for web services mailing patches, because they
just need to specify the `From:` header in the body of the patch. From
`man git-am`:
"From: " and "Subject: " lines starting the body override the
respective commit author name and title values taken from the headers.
So, a web service emailing patches can have:
From j...@webserviceaddr.example.org
From: J.Doe <j...@webserviceaddr.example.org>
Reply-to: J.Doe <j...@corpaddress.example.com>
Cc: j...@corpaddress.example.com
Subject: [PATCH] Fix foo in bar
From: J.Doe <j...@corpaddress.example.com>
Signed-off-by: J.Doe <j...@corpaddress.example.com>
---
This *should* be kosher with legal requirements in most companies:
- the email traverses the corporate server when the cc is received, so
there is a log of it in their legally required auto-cc inbox
- all replies will be sent to the corporate server
- when the patch is applied, the commit will be properly listing the
corporate address
Of course, we do have a workaround for that, which is to use a
kernel.org address.
Only a very small subset of people have these, and it may still be not
allowed by individual company's legal departments even when this is
available.
-K
_______________________________________________
Patchwork mailing list
Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
