Re: Getting good bug reports
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Getting good bug reports"):
>> So everyone is allowed to write a frontend to report bugs via smtp. But
>> only reportbug is allowed to use http? That seems a bit stupid.
> No-one _wants_ to write a frontend to report bugs via smtp, and doing
> so as a simple serverless web application is probably nearly
> impossible. So that is a moot problem.
> The reason why there is a problem with an http submission interface is
> that suddenly every idiot will think "oh I must write a cool ui for
But with the tunneling suggested below the cool UI would have to talk
smtp as well as http to setup the connection. So actualy doing this via
http would be even harder than with plain smtp. So your argument doesn't
Note: I'm not proposing bugs.d.o (or anyone else) gets an http
submission interface. Just an interface to talk to the smtpd via http.
>> Any tool generating valid mails to bugs.debian.org should also be
>> allowed to send them via http. Specifically I would like the "bts"
>> command to work over http too if reportbug does.
> The "bts" command is less relevant because it is run on your
> workstation rather than some kind of installation target.
If my workstation is behing one of those stupid ISPs that don't allow
>> Why not just make it an smtp-over-http tunnel with the clear limit of
>> only accepting mail to bug.debian.org. I mean the problem is ISPs that
>> don't allow an smtp connect to bugs.d.o so lets circumvent that
>> limitation by using http underneath.
> The opposition to http submission is because of the slippery slope
> argument I set out earlier. I think it's a more than hypothetical
> problem - see how many people in this thread have advocated precisely
> the things that sceptics (like me) don't want.
And the tunneling would keep your barrier intact.