httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From c...@decus.org (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject Re: [TEST] changes to bugdb.cgi
Date Sun, 01 Jun 1997 03:41:38 GMT
>From the fingers of Marc Slemko flowed the following:
>
>On Sat, 31 May 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>>     Brian: I'm going to see if I can ensure that the
>>     bounces-due-to-bad-address don't get replied to apbugs.  Good point!
>
>They shouldn't as long as the envelope from is left as is (well, aside
>from broken crap mailers), but I'm still not sure I like the change.  
>
>If people reply to the change message to apbugs@, then it will not be
>added to the proper PR because the subject header is incorrect; instead, a
>new one will be created.

    No, I changed the subject to be "Re: mumble/nnn:" to make it work
    correctly.  I'm currently testing bounces by including a
    "Sender" header; no results yet.

>                          I think that just leaving that as it is now and
>having people forward any appropriate replies to the bugdb works fine.

    IMHO, the current arrangement is deficient because too much occurs
    out of band.  For instance, we tell people to check the bugdb, but
    an awful lot of PRs get closed with "user found config error"
    without saying what the error *was*.  That was in private mail
    between the originator and the respondent.  Frustrating to someone
    who has the same problem and is dutifully searching, and frustrating
    for a respondent (me, at least) as well.

    I would much prefer that exchanges get logged into the bugdb; if the
    normal habit flow (get a message, reply to it) is followed with the
    current behaviour, that doesn't happen - not only do things not get
    logged, but you have to change lots of things (address, subject [and
    don't typo it!], and Cc) to get it to happen at all. 

    Just MHO.  Not out of the blue, either; I've worked with PR systems
    for more than ten years.  But it's still MHO, and I'll readily bow
    to the majority opinion.  That's why I'm testing these changes in a
    separate location.

    #ken    :-)}

Mime
View raw message