Sender field in gdb-patches messages

Sender field in gdb-patches messages

[Simon Marchi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

Hi,

I noticed a change in the messages on gdb-patches, I don't know about other lists.

Recent messages (in the last two hours maybe) include a

  Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org

header.  Is this change expected?

When I reply-all (as I always do when replying to a list message), the address
gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org is automatically included in the recipients list.
This causes my message to bounce back and to be dropped (see attached message).
It's not difficult to remove the address from the "To:" field, but I though that this
likely affects everybody.

Simon

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 7880 bytes --]

From: MAILER-DAEMON@sourceware.org
To: <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
Subject: failure notice
Date: 30 Oct 2018 21:49:25 -0000
Message-ID: <201810302149.w9ULnXCm021165@smtp.polymtl.ca>

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<gdb-patches@sourceware.org>:
Your message was sent to both the mailing list and the mailing list
owner (e.g.  gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org).  The mailing list owner address is for
reporting mailing list problems.  Please remove it from your To: or Cc:
and try again.
See http://sourceware.org/lists.html#sourceware-list-info for more information.
     
If you are not a "spammer", we apologize for the inconvenience.
You can add yourself to the sourceware.org "global allow list"
by sending email *from*the*blocked*email*address* to:
  
    global-allow-subscribe-simon.marchi=polymtl.ca@sourceware.org
 
For certain types of blocks, this will enable you to send email without
being subjected to further spam blocking.  This will not allow you to
post to a list if you have been explicitly blocked, if you are posting
an off-topic message, if you are sending an attachment that looks like a
virus, etc.
 
Contact gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org if you have questions about this. (#5.7.2)

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
Received: (qmail 21228 invoked by uid 89); 30 Oct 2018 21:49:24 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.100.1 on sourceware.org
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-24.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1929, H*Ad:U*gdb-patches-owner
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-24.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients
X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca
Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11)
 by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:49:23 +0000
Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w9ULnDBN021005
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:49:18 -0400
Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112)
	id 7A6811EAB6; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4301E514;
	Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:49:12 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:49:12 -0400
From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
To: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR gdb/23835: Don't redefine _FORTIFY_SOURCE if it's
 already defined
In-Reply-To: <20181030214236.29081-1-sergiodj@redhat.com>
References: <20181030214236.29081-1-sergiodj@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <3d5650bdf4b1af862a2fe536e5c16b5a@polymtl.ca>
X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6

On 2018-10-30 17:42, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> Gentoo has a local GCC patch which always defines _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2.
> This causes a build problem when building GDB there, because
> "common/common-defs.h" also defines _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2:
> 
>     CXX    gdb.o
>   In file included from ../../gdb/defs.h:28:0,
> 		   from ../../gdb/gdb.c:19:
>   ../../gdb/common/common-defs.h:71:0: error: "_FORTIFY_SOURCE"
> redefined [-Werror]
>    #define _FORTIFY_SOURCE 2
> 
>   <built-in>: note: this is the location of the previous definition
>   cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
>   make[2]: *** [Makefile:1619: gdb.o] Error 1
> 
> Even though it is questionable whether Gentoo's approach is the
> correct one:
> 
>   https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-29982
>   https://bugs.gentoo.org/621036
> 
> it is still possible for GDB to be a bit more robust here and make
> sure it just defines _FORTIFY_SOURCE if it hasn't been defined
> already.  This patch does that.
> 
> Tested by rebuilding and making sure the macro was defined.

I think it makes sense, it also gives the user the possibility to 
override it, if they don't like our value.  Give it a few days to give 
others a change to respond.  If you don't hear anything in ~1 week, 
please go ahead and push.

> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 2018-10-30  Sergio Durigan Junior  <sergiodj@redhat.com>
> 
> 	PR gdb/23835
> 	* common/common-defs.h: Don't redefine _FORTIFY_SOURCE is it's
> 	already defined.
> ---
>  gdb/ChangeLog            | 6 ++++++
>  gdb/common/common-defs.h | 5 +++--
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog
> index 940300f95a..239d7e16c2 100644
> --- a/gdb/ChangeLog
> +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> +2018-10-30  Sergio Durigan Junior  <sergiodj@redhat.com>
> +
> +	PR gdb/23835
> +	* common/common-defs.h: Don't redefine _FORTIFY_SOURCE is it's

is -> if.

Simon

Re: Sender field in gdb-patches messages

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:11:02PM +0000, Simon Marchi wrote:
>I noticed a change in the messages on gdb-patches, I don't know about other lists.
>
>Recent messages (in the last two hours maybe) include a
>
>  Sender: gdb-patches-owner

Here's a 2015 message to gdb-patches:

https://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=gdb-patches&date=2015-12&msgid=56855C47.7090004%40codesourcery.com

It has the same header.  In fact, this message has an overseers-owner Sender field.

I didn't go back further but I expect that it's been like that for more
than a decade.

When I replied to this message overseers-owner was not included in the reply.  I
suspect that if there is a change, it's on your end.

Btw, please don't include raw email addresses in the body of mail to mailing lists.
That is a surefire way to increase the amount of spam sent to that address.

cgf

Re: Sender field in gdb-patches messages

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 08:35:36PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:11:02PM +0000, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>I noticed a change in the messages on gdb-patches, I don't know about other lists.
>>
>>Recent messages (in the last two hours maybe) include a
>>
>>  Sender: gdb-patches-owner
>
>Here's a 2015 message to gdb-patches:
>
>https://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=gdb-patches&date=2015-12&msgid=56855C47.7090004%40codesourcery.com
>
>It has the same header.  In fact, this message has an overseers-owner Sender field.
>
>I didn't go back further but I expect that it's been like that for more
>than a decade.
>
>When I replied to this message overseers-owner was not included in the reply.  I
>suspect that if there is a change, it's on your end.
>
>Btw, please don't include raw email addresses in the body of mail to mailing lists.
>That is a surefire way to increase the amount of spam sent to that address.

Btw, if I'm reading https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822 correctly, you aren't supposed
to be repling to Sender.

cgf

Re: Sender field in gdb-patches messages

[Simon Marchi]

On 2018-10-30 8:54 p.m., Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 08:35:36PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:11:02PM +0000, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>> I noticed a change in the messages on gdb-patches, I don't know about other lists.
>>>
>>> Recent messages (in the last two hours maybe) include a
>>>
>>>  Sender: gdb-patches-owner
>>
>> Here's a 2015 message to gdb-patches:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=gdb-patches&date=2015-12&msgid=56855C47.7090004%40codesourcery.com
>>
>> It has the same header.  In fact, this message has an overseers-owner Sender field.
>>
>> I didn't go back further but I expect that it's been like that for more
>> than a decade.
>>
>> When I replied to this message overseers-owner was not included in the reply.  I
>> suspect that if there is a change, it's on your end.

Ah, it's indeed probably not on sourceware's side.  I am subscribed with two different
addresses - work and old university email.  An old message in my work inbox does have the
Sender field but the same message in the university inbox does not.  So probably some
configuration changed on the university systems or something.  Sorry for the noise, thanks
for the pointers.

>> Btw, please don't include raw email addresses in the body of mail to mailing lists.
>> That is a surefire way to increase the amount of spam sent to that address.

It was under my impression that overseers@ wasn't archived anywhere public.

> > Btw, if I'm reading https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822 correctly, you aren't supposed
> to be repling to Sender.

I'll take a look.  The faulty client would be Roundcube.  Meanwhile, my Thunderbird at work
has been dealing with the Sender field correctly it means.

Thanks for the help,

Simon

Re: Sender field in gdb-patches messages

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:03:55PM +0000, Simon Marchi wrote:
>On 2018-10-30 8:54 p.m., Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>Btw, please don't include raw email addresses in the body of mail to
>>>mailing lists.  That is a surefire way to increase the amount of spam
>>>sent to that address.
>
>It was under my impression that overseers@ wasn't archived anywhere
>public.

It is archived.  But, regardless, it's always best to err on the side of
caution with providing data to spammers.