So, i think the BTS system should go in this direction. Replacing the RFC2822.From header for DMARC doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't
want to directly influence the BTS maintainer. They're incredibly busy
in real life. I'm worried my comments might be a burden, so i'll just
vent here on the debian-user forum. Ah, yes, this is off-topic.
Hellow Debian Hackers,
According to
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5863#section-6.5>,
<quote: RFC 5863>
Service Providers:
A service provider can, as described above,
choose to sign outbound messages with either its own identity or
an identity unique to each of its clients (possibly delegated).
However, it can also do both: sign each outbound message with its
own identity as well as with the identity of each individual
client. For example, ESP A might sign mail for its client Company
B with its service provider signature d=espa.example, and a second
client-specific signature where d= either companyb.example or
companyb.espa.example. The existence of the service provider
signature could, for example, help cover a new client while it
establishes its own reputation, or help a very small volume client
who might never reach a volume threshold sufficient to establish
an individual reputation.
</quote>
So, i think the BTS system should go in this direction. Replacing the RFC2822.From header for DMARC doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't
want to directly influence the BTS maintainer. They're incredibly busy
in real life. I'm worried my comments might be a burden, so i'll just
vent here on the debian-user forum. Ah, yes, this is off-topic.
More REFERENCEs: [1], [2], [3]
[1] https://gitlab.com/soyeomul/Gnus/-/raw/6dc5b9c7addd736a537d51150d459d7dcbd480b5/stuff/rfc5863.eml
[2] https://gitlab.com/soyeomul/Gnus/-/raw/6dc5b9c7addd736a537d51150d459d7dcbd480b5/stuff/rfc5863.png
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=754809
(...)Hellow Jeff,
Also see Tolerating Mailing-List Modifications, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-chuang-mailing-list-modifications-04.html>.
Hi,Thank you for good advice!
On Sun, Mar 01, 2026 at 12:25:58AM +0900, Byunghee HWANG (???) wrote:
So, i think the BTS system should go in this direction. Replacing the
RFC2822.From header for DMARC doesn't seem like a good idea. I don't
want to directly influence the BTS maintainer. They're incredibly busy
in real life. I'm worried my comments might be a burden, so i'll just
vent here on the debian-user forum. Ah, yes, this is off-topic.
It seems a rather bizarre choice to direct your comment about an almost
12 year old discussion about the workings of the Debian bug tracker to
this mailing list, where the people who actually work on the BTS won't
see it. Almost no one here will care about or understand the issue, so there won't even be a useful debate.
If you had something constructive to add it would really be best said on
the bug itself, especially as I see the last comments on that big were
almost a year ago from one of the BTS developers who seems to be saying
they are working on rewriting the From address, i.e. not what you want.
So, what did you want to happen byu posting this here?I am an email forwarder (for myself). Forwarders like to receive emails
Thanks,
Andy
Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> writes:
So, what did you want to happen byu posting this here?
I am an email forwarder (for myself). Forwarders like to receive emails
as close to their original state as possible, without any changes to the intermediate headers. In particular, manipulating the RFC2822.From
header was incredibly frustrating. However, i do like additional headers added during email transmission, such as DKIM, ARC and X-Forwarded-To.
And as i said at the beginning, i wrote this on the Debian forum because
i hoped that my feelings would not be conveyed to the BTS
maintainers. Anyway, i love the Debian Project. A lot!
Hi,Hellow Andy, everything's fine now. Thank you for reading my email!
On Sun, Mar 01, 2026 at 03:29:49PM +0900, Byunghee HWANG (???) wrote:
Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> writes:
So, what did you want to happen byu posting this here?
I am an email forwarder (for myself). Forwarders like to receive emails
as close to their original state as possible, without any changes to the
intermediate headers. In particular, manipulating the RFC2822.From
header was incredibly frustrating. However, i do like additional headers
added during email transmission, such as DKIM, ARC and X-Forwarded-To.
And as i said at the beginning, i wrote this on the Debian forum because
i hoped that my feelings would not be conveyed to the BTS
maintainers. Anyway, i love the Debian Project. A lot!
Okay so you disagree with what one of the BTS developers wants to do but
you like them and Debian so much that instead of trying to change their
mind you're just going to tell us about your feelings somewhere where
they won't see it. There was no goal other than telling us about your feelings.
All right then. Were you wanting any comments on your argument or did
you just want it put out there into the world?
Thanks,
Okay so you disagree with what one of the BTS developers wants to do but
you like them and Debian so much that instead of trying to change their
mind you're just going to tell us about your feelings somewhere where
they won't see it. There was no goal other than telling us about your feelings.
All right then. Were you wanting any comments on your argument or did
you just want it put out there into the world?
Thanks,
Andy
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 119:49:32 |
| Calls: | 125 |
| Calls today: | 125 |
| Files: | 489 |
| D/L today: |
859 files (365M bytes) |
| Messages: | 76,568 |
| Posted today: | 26 |
