[IMP] mail: allow to remove plus addressing from bounce return addresses #72347
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tde-banana-odoo
force-pushed
the
13.0-mail-no_require_plus_addressing
branch
from
ec21112
to
852742e
Compare
Since odoo/odoo@f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix odoo#71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes odoo#71242 Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347
tde-banana-odoo
force-pushed
the
13.0-mail-no_require_plus_addressing
branch
from
852742e
to
c6f08f4
Compare
|
@robodoo r+ rebase-ff |
|
Merge method set to rebase and fast-forward |
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2021
Since f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix #71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes #71242 Task ID-2547347 PR #72347
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2021
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR #72347 Signed-off-by: Thibault Delavallee (tde) <tde@openerp.com>
tde-banana-odoo
pushed a commit
to odoo-dev/odoo
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
…dresses Since odoo/odoo@f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix odoo#71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes odoo#71242 Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347 X-Original-Commit: odoo/odoo@6c1fbed
tde-banana-odoo
added a commit
to odoo-dev/odoo
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347 X-Original-Commit: odoo/odoo@0fc5f50
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
…dresses Since f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix #71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes #71242 Task ID-2547347 PR #72347 X-Original-Commit: 6c1fbed
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR #72347 closes #72371 X-original-commit: 0fc5f50 Signed-off-by: Thibault Delavallee (tde) <tde@openerp.com>
fw-bot
pushed a commit
to odoo-dev/odoo
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
…dresses Since odoo/odoo@f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix odoo#71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes odoo#71242 Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347 X-original-commit: df2d955
fw-bot
pushed a commit
to odoo-dev/odoo
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347 X-original-commit: 6e1bca5
fw-bot
pushed a commit
to odoo-dev/odoo
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
…dresses Since odoo/odoo@f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix odoo#71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes odoo#71242 Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347 X-original-commit: df2d955
fw-bot
pushed a commit
to odoo-dev/odoo
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347 X-original-commit: 6e1bca5
fw-bot
pushed a commit
to odoo-dev/odoo
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
…dresses Since odoo/odoo@f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix odoo#71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes odoo#71242 Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347 X-original-commit: df2d955
fw-bot
pushed a commit
to odoo-dev/odoo
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR odoo#72347 X-original-commit: 6e1bca5
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
…dresses Since f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix #71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes #71242 Task ID-2547347 PR #72347 X-original-commit: df2d955
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR #72347 closes #72415 X-original-commit: 6e1bca5 Signed-off-by: Thibault Delavallee (tde) <tde@openerp.com>
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
…dresses Since f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix #71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes #71242 Task ID-2547347 PR #72347 X-original-commit: df2d955
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR #72347 closes #72410 X-original-commit: 6e1bca5 Signed-off-by: Thibault Delavallee (tde) <tde@openerp.com>
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
…dresses Since f4524f0 plus addressing is not used anymore for handling bounces. Indeed it relies on references / in reply to to find original message that bounced. It is therefore not necessary to enforce the use of plus addressing. As some provider do not support plus addressing as a way to contact left-part of email with sub-informations people should have a way to deactivate plus addressing used in bounce aliases. To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions old behavior is retained unless a new `mail.bounce.alias.static` ICP is set with a truthy value. Fix #71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing. @Tecnativa TT29827 Closes #71242 Task ID-2547347 PR #72347 X-original-commit: df2d955
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2021
When a bounce has to be managed on a record already inheriting from blacklist mixin it shoudl not be counted two times: one for email-based bounce and one for "all records using that email linked to blacklist mechanism should bounce". A mechanism exists to prevent that double increase but it was not correctly done. Protection was reset in a loop. Task ID-2547347 PR #72347 closes #72420 X-original-commit: 6e1bca5 Signed-off-by: Thibault Delavallee (tde) <tde@openerp.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fix #71242 by dropping requirement of plus addressing.
Since f4524f0, plus addressing is not really used for handling bounces. Thus, still forcing everyone to use it is unnecessary.
To preserve backwards compatibility for stable versions, old behavior is retained unless a new
mail.bounce.alias.staticICP is set with a truthy value.@Tecnativa TT29827