| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New email address |
| Date: | 2015-11-25 16:12:25 |
| Message-ID: | 2424.1448467945@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think that would put us in a situation where DKIM signatures would still
>> pass, at least unless the source insisted on signing Sender: too.
> Incidentally I'm confused about your concern about Sender. Sender has
> almost no significance for email afaik.
The PG lists do not think so; for example in -hackers traffic you will
find
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
which matches the envelope From address. Every other mailing list I'm on
behaves similarly. Now, I'm not an email standards guru so I have no idea
whether that's actually necessary or not, but I kinda doubt that you're
right and all the mailing list software authors are wrong.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Catalin Iacob | 2015-11-25 16:13:23 | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-25 15:29:02 | Re: What .gitignore files do in the tarball? |