From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Mar 4 16:08:33 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58782720CC for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:08:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48Xf1s47kYz3GVS for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:08:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 7C5302720CB; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:08:33 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766282720CA for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:08:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48Xf1q2hWYz3GTK for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:08:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 053A620803 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:08:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 024G8UYs061500 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:08:30 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 024G8U8X061499 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:08:30 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 244514] "reply-to" function in pf breaks RFC 1122 section 3.3.1.1 Local/Remote Decision Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 16:08:31 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: Unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: ctminime@yahoo.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 16:08:34 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D244514 ctminime@yahoo.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Closed |New Resolution|Works As Intended |--- --- Comment #4 from ctminime@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #2) I am re-opening this for a couple of reasons: 1. I don't think my previous reply was seen by Kristof (who closed this). 2. It was closed so fast it left NO room for others in the community to com= ment 3. One person should not be able to dictate weather something gets looked a= t. I ask that this be left open for at least a week for commenters. While, the feature may currently work as intended and documented, this could still be = an improvement on the reply-to feature. And it is my personal opinion (and bac= ked by RFC) the the behavior I outlined is wrong. If others think this should be addressed, great. Then it should stay open. = If others think nothing needs/should be done. I will accept the "closed - work= s as intended". --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=