Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section
Date
Msg-id 2852693.1728656353@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section  (Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>)
Responses Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section
List pgsql-general
Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> writes:
> On 2024-10-11 15:00 +0200, iseki wrote:
>> But why the mailing list haven't use the "Reply-To" header specify where to
>> reply? Because the mail is you send to me directly?

> The message author sets Reply-To, if necessary, according to RFC 5322.
> Are there mailing lists that actually set this header?

It's been done in the past, but current practice is strongly against
it.  For example, in your own message that I'm replying to, there's
a DKIM signature (RFC 6376):

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ewie.name; s=MBO0001;
    t=1728654419;
    h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
     to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
     in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
    bh=7w7CHebdKaXtlhCMxa/jNIcoEy1tFhZmzOD+dT7nP8k=;
    b=K3s//HzYXU+chTDeY5p/wGwd5eglESiaugVSpGWo49ryL9ajLdimYMD3uIc3rr8PglZizV
    nk2wDiMsHnLR0EAgKsGzNvtxt4N9hHxMk7UI3F4XOVYqnemk95YVRNpFpEFww833uUqA+9
    RPypj/ezsKbi2vBzzXIoZ+Tf3t6XfuZYf6poq1J+ud0X278yQMnA1XbZNsenQkCWoYPiXb
    yklxY2Nbp9NyiDHCDQ0KPYAT6/0ttzbprNhgSzhN7LND6ehUvLlsmKG3rwqby2LmFRwliQ
    RDZ4MAxEzZKfOr8HGnubQf8FdQPGw6jlAn3U8199c+3QcIAWJ99Wrtb5rQPdEw==

That lists "reply-to" as one of the signed header fields.  So if the
mailing list were to modify Reply-To (including inserting one where
there was none before) a DKIM-verifying recipient would regard the
message as a forgery.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Erik Wienhold
Date:
Subject: Re: Questions about document "Concurrenry control" section
Next
From: Christophe Pettus
Date:
Subject: Re: PGBouncer - Load balancing options