Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stripping out the DO NOT REPLY from bugzie emails

[Fabian Groffen]

On 29-09-2007 14:11:54 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> posted
> 20070929100139.GB14360@g.o, excerpted below, on  Sat, 29 Sep 2007
> 12:01:39 +0200:
>
> > On 29-09-2007 02:29:21 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 09:23:21AM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> >> > Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@g.o> said:
> >> > > It seems that not everybody loves the new "DO NOT REPLY TO THIS
> >> > > EMAIL" header at the top of every bugzie email as much as robbat2
> >> > > does.
> >> > 1. if everybody hates it (full ack btw), why not remove it globally?
> >> Not everybody hates it, and it's there to dissuade users from replying
> >> to Bugzilla mail by hitting reply in the MUA.
> >> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181172
> >
> > Isn't that tackled suffiently now by setting a bogus reply-to header?
>
> The problem is those replies may contain information of use in fixing the
> bug.  If the mail gets null-spaced...

I don't see your point.  If you have a mailserver running on localhost
that accepts mail for /dev/null (i.e. it thinks it is a valid email
address) and discards it without notice, then that's your problem.  Most
of the time this is not the case and an immediate reject or a bounce
message is the result.

> Better to warn upfront that a reply via mail isn't going to have the
> intended results, AND bogus reply-to header it.

I agree warning is fine.  However, I think there is a correlation
between people hitting reply to bugzilla mails and people not
reading/paying attention to such messages.  I think the annoyance
of having the message does not pay off against the technical limitation
of not being able to reply any more, whereas the latter is very
effective and the first probably not.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list