1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
|
{
"id": 12095,
"owner": {
"canonical_name": "~runxiyu",
"name": "runxiyu"
},
"created": "2023-08-09T18:38:02+00:00",
"updated": "2023-08-09T18:38:02+00:00",
"name": "smlmp",
"description": "Tickets for the [Simple Mailing List Management Program](https://sr.ht/~runxiyu/smlmp)",
"labels": [
],
"tickets": [
{
"id": 6,
"created": "2023-07-15T19:29:44+00:00",
"updated": "2024-04-04T17:48:11+00:00",
"submitter": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ref": "~runxiyu/smlmp#6",
"subject": "No return path guarantee",
"body": "The `envelope_from` address which is used to direct bounces caught via the SenderReply exception is not guaranteed to be a valid return address. Some authentication-related checking may be necessary.\n\nWe could perhaps simply use the body `From` header's address for most SenderReply bounces (and also add `In-Reply-To` via `Message-ID`), but this won't be guarantee to if the original message fails DKIM. We need a better method to handle bounces before or during DKIM checks.\n\nIn the following exchange, an unauthorized server (`de.andrewyu.org`) attempts to make `mail.andrewyu.org` think that it's (as in make the latter think the former is) `mail.noisytoot.org`, and attempts to send mail as `andrew@noisytoot.org` in both the envelope and `From` header. It attempts to send to the user `alwaysbounce@andrewyu.org`, which has a local delivery agent script set in `.forward` that always fails, so Postfix should be handling the bounce.\n```\nandrew@de.andrewyu.org ~ $ nc mail.andrewyu.org 25\n220 mail.andrewyu.org ESMTP andrewyu.org (Debian/GNU)\nHELO mail.noisytoot.org\n250 mail.andrewyu.org\nMAIL FROM: andrew@noisytoot.org\n250 2.1.0 Ok\nRCPT TO: alwaysbounce@andrewyu.org\n250 2.1.5 Ok\nDATA\n354 End data with <CR><LF>.<CR><LF>\nFrom: andrew@noisytoot.org\nTo: alwaysbounce@andrewyu.org\nSubject: Sending to an address that Postfix bounces, from an impersonated envelope from, and impersonated MIME From\n\nToo lazy to write content.\n.\n250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 9372AFC0FE\n```\n\nWhen I then checked the mailbox for `andrew@noisytoot.org`, I found the bounce laying there. So apparently Postfix doesn't have a good way either.\n\nNow I'm thinking of checking SPF (alignment with envelope from) and such, but that has two problems:\n1. What if the sending user is already using a relay? We would be erroneously rejecting messages. Although most users don't do so.\n2. Even if we notice that their SPF fails, what are we going to do about it? Silently drop? Or exit abnormally so Postfix returns the email however it wants?",
"status": "REPORTED",
"resolution": "UNRESOLVED",
"labels": [
],
"assignees": [
],
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht",
"events": [
{
"id": 251623,
"created": "2023-07-15T19:29:44+00:00",
"event_type": [
"CREATED"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 6,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 251624,
"created": "2023-07-15T19:37:06+00:00",
"event_type": [
"COMMENT"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 6,
"comment": {
"id": 102281,
"created": "2023-07-15T19:37:06+00:00",
"author": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"text": "If we act as our own receiving MTA and directly process connections from outside servers (which isn't hard in-and-of-itself, but would not easily and peacefully coexist with Postfix as only one process could bind to relevant ports such as 25), perhaps there's something in the SMTP envelope RFC that allows us to reject mail as we're reading through the DATA? (And of course, in that case we could easily reject invalid RCPT TO's.)\n\nIs it possible to let Postfix outright reject an email during DATA or immediatly after the end of DATA, instead of giving SMTP 250 Ok?\n"
},
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 251625,
"created": "2023-07-15T19:50:25+00:00",
"event_type": [
"COMMENT"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 6,
"comment": {
"id": 102282,
"created": "2023-07-15T19:50:25+00:00",
"author": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"text": "Or just delegate it to the MTA that launched our MDA.\n\n\n`pipe.8` says\n```\nCommand exit status codes are expected to follow the conventions defined\nin <sysexits.h>. Exit status 0 means normal successful completion.\n\nIn the case of a non-zero exit status, a limited amount of command\noutput is logged, and reported in a delivery status notification. When\nthe output begins with a 4.X.X or 5.X.X enhanced status code, the status\ncode takes precedence over the non-zero exit status (Postfix version 2.3\nand later).\n\nAfter successful delivery (zero exit status) a limited amount of command\noutput is logged, and reported in \"success\" delivery status\nnotifications (Postfix 3.0 and later). This command output is not\nexamined for the presence of an enhanced status code.\n```\n\nSimiler for `local.8`.\n"
},
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 251626,
"created": "2023-07-16T03:53:56+00:00",
"event_type": [
"COMMENT"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 6,
"comment": {
"id": 102283,
"created": "2023-07-16T03:53:56+00:00",
"author": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"text": "```\r\n19:31 <AndrewYu> Hi... how does a receiving MTA properly determine return path when needing to bounce?\r\n19:32 <AndrewYu> https://todo.sr.ht/~andrewyu/smlmp/6 context\r\n19:33 <lunaphyte> return path is just [yet another] fancy term for the envelope sender\r\n19:34 <lunaphyte> when an mta accepts a message, it records the envelope sender as part of its queuing process. if it decides to create a bounce message due to deliverability problem [or whatever], it references the envelope sender it recorded when it accepted the message\r\n19:37 <AndrewYu> Yes... My question is, how does the MTA determine the envelope sender to be valid. let me attempt to rephrase \r\n19:37 <lunaphyte> using other values to determine where to send bounce messages is a bad, bad, idea. please don't do that\r\n19:38 <lunaphyte> here is the actual question you need to be asking: \"why are there bounce messages getting generated?\"\r\n19:38 <lunaphyte> define\" valid\"\r\n19:51 [AndrewYu away: sleep]\r\n00:50 <AndrewYu> lunaphyte: My (custom) mailing list manager has detected a problem in a message and needs to reject the email \r\n01:38 <lunaphyte> what problem?\r\n01:57 <AndrewYu> Something like, \"this user does not have permission to send to this list\", or \"MIME attachments are not allowed\" \r\n02:16 <@rob0> the MLM typically sets its own envelope sender address. That's the address that receives list bounces.\r\n02:27 <pj> AndrewYu: I would recommend that you attempt to reject the message instead of sending a bounce, otherwise your server will become a backscatter source.\r\n02:31 <pj> It basically means that your MTA needs to have a mechanism to reject the message before it's queued, postfix can do this given the proper configuration, as well as most other major MTAs.\r\n02:34 <pj> !t AndrewYu backscatter\r\n02:34 <dig-dug> AndrewYu: backscatter: Backscatter are bounces sent to innocent systems. A spammer sent email in behalf of the victim's system. Undeliverable emails get bounced to the victim. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_(email)\r\n03:10 <lunaphyte> your philosophy is flawed. do not accept messages and then decide if you want them. decide if you want them before you accept them, and if not, reject them\r\n03:11 <lunaphyte> why are you attempting to write more mailing list software? this is something that requires a comprehensive understanding of email, and how to operate email infrastructure responsibly\r\n03:12 <lunaphyte> a mailing list needs to require confirmed opt in before accepting messages from a given sender, which makes it easy to know if someone has permission to send to a list\r\n```"
},
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 339606,
"created": "2024-04-04T17:48:10+00:00",
"event_type": [
"TICKET_MENTIONED"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": null,
"ticket_id": 6,
"comment": {
"id": 121476,
"created": "2024-04-04T17:48:09+00:00",
"author": {
"type": "user",
"user_id": 21372,
"canonical_name": "~tsdh",
"name": "tsdh"
},
"text": "*Tassilo Horn referenced this ticket in commit [e6a4ce1].*\n\n[e6a4ce1]: https://git.sr.ht/~tsdh/highlight-parentheses.el/commit/e6a4ce1 \"Improve fix for #6 by always running the highlight fn in the right buffer\""
},
"label": null,
"by_user": {
"type": "user",
"user_id": 21372,
"canonical_name": "~tsdh",
"name": "tsdh"
},
"from_ticket_id": 6,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 341999,
"created": "2024-04-04T17:48:12+00:00",
"event_type": [
"TICKET_MENTIONED"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": null,
"ticket_id": 6,
"comment": {
"id": 121477,
"created": "2024-04-04T17:48:11+00:00",
"author": {
"type": "user",
"user_id": 21372,
"canonical_name": "~tsdh",
"name": "tsdh"
},
"text": "*Tassilo Horn referenced this ticket in commit [e6a4ce1].*\n\n[e6a4ce1]: https://git.sr.ht/~tsdh/highlight-parentheses.el/commit/e6a4ce1 \"Improve fix for #6 by always running the highlight fn in the right buffer\""
},
"label": null,
"by_user": {
"type": "user",
"user_id": 21372,
"canonical_name": "~tsdh",
"name": "tsdh"
},
"from_ticket_id": 5,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
}
]
},
{
"id": 5,
"created": "2023-07-14T18:29:42+00:00",
"updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:15+00:00",
"submitter": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ref": "~runxiyu/smlmp#5",
"subject": "Validate database and configuration",
"body": "<!--\nPlease enter the subject of the new ticket above. The subject line\ncan be followed by a blank line and a Markdown description. An\nempty subject aborts the ticket.\n-->\n\nCurrently, the database and configuration are assumed to be in a consistent and correct state. If users manually edit them, however, the configuration may be in a broken state (e.g. selectors have values that are other than their correct options, numbers being negative, etc.). We therefore need to implement validation to better hangle these edge cases, perhaps by reporting errors to the instance administrator.",
"status": "REPORTED",
"resolution": "UNRESOLVED",
"labels": [
],
"assignees": [
],
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht",
"events": [
{
"id": 251620,
"created": "2023-07-14T18:29:42+00:00",
"event_type": [
"CREATED"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 5,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 251621,
"created": "2023-07-14T19:17:15+00:00",
"event_type": [
"ASSIGNED_USER"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 5,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
}
]
},
{
"id": 7,
"created": "2023-07-15T19:50:40+00:00",
"updated": "2023-07-15T19:50:40+00:00",
"submitter": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ref": "~runxiyu/smlmp#7",
"subject": "Consider LMTP",
"body": "",
"status": "REPORTED",
"resolution": "UNRESOLVED",
"labels": [
],
"assignees": [
],
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht",
"events": [
{
"id": 251622,
"created": "2023-07-15T19:50:40+00:00",
"event_type": [
"CREATED"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 7,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
}
]
},
{
"id": 1,
"created": "2023-07-13T04:06:10+00:00",
"updated": "2023-07-15T18:32:38+00:00",
"submitter": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ref": "~runxiyu/smlmp#1",
"subject": "Relay access denied",
"body": "<!--\nPlease enter the subject of the new ticket above. The subject line\ncan be followed by a blank line and a Markdown description. An\nempty subject aborts the ticket.\n-->\n\nA plain unauthenticated SMTP connection to `localhost:25` is an attempt to use the MTA as an open relay, which obviously won't work on properly configured MTAs.\n\nDemonstration:\n\n```\nandrew@andrewyu:~$ nc localhost 25\n220 mail.andrewyu.org ESMTP andrewyu.org (Debian/GNU)\nHELO mail.andrewyu.org\n250 mail.andrewyu.org\nMAIL FROM: andrew@andrewyu.org\n250 2.1.0 Ok\nRCPT TO: andrew@noisytoot.org\n554 5.7.1 <andrew@noisytoot.org>: Relay access denied\n```",
"status": "REPORTED",
"resolution": "UNRESOLVED",
"labels": [
],
"assignees": [
],
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht",
"events": [
{
"id": 251612,
"created": "2023-07-13T04:06:10+00:00",
"event_type": [
"CREATED"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 1,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 251613,
"created": "2023-07-13T04:06:32+00:00",
"event_type": [
"ASSIGNED_USER"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 1,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 251614,
"created": "2023-07-14T19:28:43+00:00",
"event_type": [
"COMMENT"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 1,
"comment": {
"id": 102279,
"created": "2023-07-14T19:28:43+00:00",
"author": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"text": "Make sure that `smtpd_relay_restrictions` in `main.cf` includes `permit_mynetworks` and things should work.\n\nHowever, I wonder how GNU Mailman and other MLMs do it, since I don't recall needing to permit local relaying when using Mailman 2's SMTPDirect. Relying on relay access seems to be incorrect.\n"
},
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 251615,
"created": "2023-07-15T18:32:38+00:00",
"event_type": [
"COMMENT"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 1,
"comment": {
"id": 102280,
"created": "2023-07-15T18:32:38+00:00",
"author": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"text": "Please note that `permit_mynetworks` must come BEFORE any relevant `reject...` clauses such as `reject_unauth_destination`. Otherwise the email will be rejected.\n"
},
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
}
]
},
{
"id": 2,
"created": "2023-07-13T05:14:44+00:00",
"updated": "2023-07-13T05:19:18+00:00",
"submitter": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ref": "~runxiyu/smlmp#2",
"subject": "Use Authentication-Results header",
"body": "The `Authentication-Results` header is provided by many MTAs (such as Postfix with OpenDKIM). When such a header is found, it should be used, instead of the program attempting to use the `dkimpy` module to re-verify DKIM.\n\nBy default, OpenDKIM only adds `Authentication-Results` when the originating domain has a \"signs all\" policy. Add `AlwaysAddARHeader yes` to `opendkim.conf` to override this. However, note that `Authentication-Results` would NOT be added to mail sent by the MTA to a user on itself, since it'd be signing rather than verifying in its pass through OpenDKIM. In this case, the `Authentication-Results` header would be completely missing, rather than some variation of `none` or `fail`. Is it safe to assert that the email comes from our own server in this situation?",
"status": "REPORTED",
"resolution": "UNRESOLVED",
"labels": [
],
"assignees": [
],
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht",
"events": [
{
"id": 251616,
"created": "2023-07-13T05:19:18+00:00",
"event_type": [
"ASSIGNED_USER"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 2,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 251617,
"created": "2023-07-13T05:14:44+00:00",
"event_type": [
"CREATED"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 2,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
}
]
},
{
"id": 3,
"created": "2023-07-13T05:19:02+00:00",
"updated": "2023-07-13T05:19:12+00:00",
"submitter": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ref": "~runxiyu/smlmp#3",
"subject": "Local command archive delivery",
"body": "While the support for an external archive via email forwarding will still be supported (I mean, probably...), using this to deliver to a user that runs public-inbox in `.forward`, which requires public-inbox to read the `List-ID` header to identify mailing lists, is a security vulnerability as malicious users who want to inject content into the mailing list archives could send email with `List-ID` directly to the public inbox user.\n\nArchival should support calling local mail delivery agents, setting necessary environment variables (especially `ORIGINAL_RECIPIENT`) as appropriate.",
"status": "REPORTED",
"resolution": "UNRESOLVED",
"labels": [
],
"assignees": [
],
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht",
"events": [
{
"id": 251618,
"created": "2023-07-13T05:19:02+00:00",
"event_type": [
"CREATED"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 3,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": null,
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
},
{
"id": 251619,
"created": "2023-07-13T05:19:12+00:00",
"event_type": [
"ASSIGNED_USER"
],
"old_status": null,
"old_resolution": null,
"new_status": null,
"new_resolution": null,
"participant": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"ticket_id": 3,
"comment": null,
"label": null,
"by_user": {
"type": "email",
"address": "andrew@andrewyu.org",
"name": "~andrewyu"
},
"from_ticket_id": null,
"upstream": "https://todo.sr.ht"
}
]
}
]
}
|
