From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::32e; helo=mail-wm1-x32e.google.com; envelope-from=leif.lindholm@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32A6721164893 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id q12-v6so6640316wmq.0 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:10:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YWOiZE8aSBRE3z4b++Vrm9CwmXg+COsKLvjH6i4FMx0=; b=c+dxId+SC5JDtUKP+/W/z6TEBfN6IpWfgdpD0S40rTVWHw1gSeYvG8ijmJcwt0hHjh Nzjo0HRYIcp3bm1hsjtBRP7mjLrdGI7Ln4GsKBrDbdYyMII4LD1EXVL6S6pVaYn/vMoo XHt64iJBX7GfzmfJgZBW11DuclCmmG/6xER2U= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YWOiZE8aSBRE3z4b++Vrm9CwmXg+COsKLvjH6i4FMx0=; b=MdBaLsfM0uRB5ujpDZMoMZNFA+Y+r4PP/P6MLKwc1kBtyPzDoG0WLnShKZh+yFVbpQ T2+/RseVygksMMymBW+W/Y7tGCNn6gX3+yGodZcJjlFx5D8dVCTRdoVkp0/JRjaLUoSP trWmAseIa7G1ZmVD1MwOhn3LhdM/X2uFfX/NcOkw8/DOB4J05Zh1H/N/SDRvLpoTXqxc I9HASuLoD2P0tjhVabfOfH2UW07pSrKfrFNuOlYOZVqE1lK/aGHm0K875BpNc+FWjNgh W3hGSTKU3ip9HmJHHVlN/znxKRmjLHdDVRWlvjKuQHJdS+Pu3g8RJXm2h9CCymkpj6Jx vBEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLiHVtE8Iv7FKI1+vryygxQ8U17TsEOpGbhY3wWvr33ry/fgvum v5boEA2SzJOrsG8KVb98chVy8w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5ezlg58M/p3Mlh4qftzeR+MiFlXu0PyXJ39tNrUxiUmJW8q6gzhlYpMD4mGvP899VujbvAOXw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:248b:: with SMTP id k133-v6mr14228446wmk.148.1540847406323; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bivouac.eciton.net (bivouac.eciton.net. [2a00:1098:0:86:1000:23:0:2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x8-v6sm54879648wrd.54.2018.10.29.14.10.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:10:03 +0000 From: Leif Lindholm To: "Kinney, Michael D" Cc: EDK II Development , "Cetola, Stephano" Message-ID: <20181029211003.4sz5vwzvldveiev5@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <20181029195415.t63zjpz6byuveqne@bivouac.eciton.net> <20181029204016.yeweqvts2cnsbulz@bivouac.eciton.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: ** NOTICE ** edk2-devel mailing list configuration changes X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:10:08 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi Mike, I could hypothesise about which email client you may be using :) But let me instead mention that the two email clients I have (mutt and gmail web interface) behave identically - neither adds the original sender to cc when the list server forces a reply-to header. Regards, Leif On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 08:49:09PM +0000, Kinney, Michael D wrote: > Leif, > > Very strange. When I do the same on that email, it > shows Paul on the To address line. > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org] > > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 1:40 PM > > To: Kinney, Michael D > > Cc: EDK II Development ; > > Cetola, Stephano > > Subject: Re: [edk2] ** NOTICE ** edk2-devel mailing list > > configuration changes > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > When I try to "reply-to", the email from Paul A Lohr, > > sent 10 minutes > > after your one below, he does not show up in either "to" > > or "cc". > > > > OK, I missed the excitement during the plugfest. I'll go > > back and see > > what I can find there. > > > > Regards, > > > > Leif > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 08:23:43PM +0000, Kinney, > > Michael D wrote: > > > Leif, > > > > > > I have enabled a different configuration setting > > > that should be better. > > > > > > Please try some emails and let me know if there > > > are any impacts. > > > > > > The reason for these changes is the DMARC related > > > issue that occurred on 10-19-2018 that required a > > > number of users to be disabled. The goal of these > > > changes is to enable those users to be re-activated. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Leif Lindholm > > [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org] > > > > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 12:54 PM > > > > To: EDK II Development > > > > Cc: Kinney, Michael D ; > > > > Cetola, Stephano > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] ** NOTICE ** edk2-devel mailing > > list > > > > configuration changes > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 06:42:44PM +0000, Kinney, > > > > Michael D wrote: > > > > > Some configuration changes have been made to > > > > > the edk2-devel mailing list to handle posts from > > > > > a domain with a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy > > > > > enabled. If this is detected then the from address > > > > > is now munged. > > > > > > > > > > One side effect of this setting is that the > > > > > behavior of Reply has changed. Instead of being > > > > > a reply to the poster of the message, the Reply > > > > > address is the edk2-devel mailing list. > > > > > > > > The behaviour looks somewhat broken, since as far as > > I > > > > can tell, > > > > replies now longer include the person you're > > replying > > > > to. > > > > (This doesn't happen when replying specifically to > > > > _you_, because you > > > > cc yourself on everything). > > > > > > > > > If you wish to send a private reply to only the > > > > > poster of the message, you may have to perform > > > > > some manual steps. > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you have any concerns about > > > > > these changes or if these configuration changes > > > > > cause any other side effects. > > > > > > > > Can we make sure the person being replied to is at > > least > > > > on cc? > > > > Otherwise, we've just broken the workflow for anyone > > > > filtering on > > > > whether they are on "to" or "cc". > > > > > > > > Why was this change necessary? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Leif