[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#75853: TONER CARTRIDGES



On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:38:27AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2002, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> > Could we have some authorisation or verification request
> > on the BTS!?!?!?
> >
> > A mail that asks the submitter to reply to the mail to
> > verify that it's a human beeing, not a machine that sent
> > the bugreport (and remembering this for future bug reports)?
> People send bug reports and bug mails from incorrectly configured mail
> systems.  Do you want to drop such problem reports?

Well, yeah -- bug reports are horrible when you can't contact the
submitter. That's one of the items that Telsa listed amongst the
"reasons why Gnome switched from debbugs to bugzilla".

Of course, the BTS acks are bad enough now, without you also needing to
reply to them yourself. Although, maybe it'd be enough to do something
like VERP and only delete bug mails whose ACK bounces. Even then, though,
you'd end silently dropping some bug submissions, which would be a bit
lame. Another alternative would be to add a control@ command that lets
you delete some submissions to the BTS. Something like "spam 123456 5"
to kill the the 5th mail for bug#123456. But you _really_ wouldn't want
to typo the bug number then. Another alternative would be to just hide
the email, and have an "unspam" command that lets you see it again,
if you want.

Excuse me while I take a breath.

Anyway, I've been thinking that we'll probably want to do away with the
123456-done@bugs.debian.org method of closing bugs sometime, to ensure
that we can start tracking which version of a package closed a bug (so
the close command would then become "close 123456 3.14-5.2"). Obviously
the archive scripts and other things would need to be changed to cope,
too. Do people think this would suck, too much? If not, it also lets us
avoid the problem of address harvesters accidently figuring out how to
close bugs.

And then, of course, we can start making (certain) requests to
control@b.d.o require PGP signatures... ;)

Cheers,
aj, who should stop thinking about this sometime soon and start doing it

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''



Reply to: