| 1 |
Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
>> The problem is those replies may contain information of use in fixing the |
| 3 |
>> bug. If the mail gets null-spaced... |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I don't see your point. If you have a mailserver running on localhost |
| 6 |
> that accepts mail for /dev/null (i.e. it thinks it is a valid email |
| 7 |
> address) and discards it without notice, then that's your problem. Most |
| 8 |
> of the time this is not the case and an immediate reject or a bounce |
| 9 |
> message is the result. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Right! The bogus reply-to should either be an invalid address, in which |
| 12 |
case the sender will realize right away that the mail did not go |
| 13 |
anywhere, or there could be an autoresponder that tells the sender to |
| 14 |
use bugzilla's web interface. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Or... you could keep the return address as-is, but use procmail to not |
| 17 |
accept mail unless it is from the bugzilla system (otherwise, |
| 18 |
autorespond as above). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Any of these would be preferable to the 3 extra lines at the top of |
| 21 |
every email now that are not only annoying, but only useful to initiate |
| 22 |
the few who would attempt to reply. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I agree warning is fine. However, I think there is a correlation |
| 25 |
> between people hitting reply to bugzilla mails and people not |
| 26 |
> reading/paying attention to such messages. I think the annoyance |
| 27 |
> of having the message does not pay off against the technical limitation |
| 28 |
> of not being able to reply any more, whereas the latter is very |
| 29 |
> effective and the first probably not. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Agreed. There are several technical solutions that are far more |
| 32 |
effective and less annoying than the banner. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-Joe |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives