Re: Who gets an email when with bugreports [was: Re: Unauthorised activity surrounding tbb package]
Am 19.01.2015 um 02:03 schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 08:37 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> I'm going to put together a bit more firm of a proposal in the next few
>>> weeks, but I think that basically everything but nnn-done@ and
>>> nnn-submitter@ should be no different from mailing nnn@, and until I
>>> allow submitters to opt out of e-mail, mailing nnn-submitter@ should be
>>> no different from e-mailing nnn@ either.
>> I'd very much appreciate the ability to not be auto-subscribed to
>> every bug so please do implement the opt-out thing, preferably before
>> this change is rolled out.
>> Personally, I think subscriptions should work like this:
>> The default should be to auto-subscribe submitters and contributors to bugs.
> No, this would turn the BTS into a (worse) spam vector.
> But the acknowledgement mail should tell you how to subscribe, if you
> aren't already subscribed.
But isn't subscribing participants "natural"? Posting to a bug report
means participation and thus you'd get the follow-ups. Why would you
post to a bug report if you aren't interested in what happens with it,
how things proceed/evolve?
I can understand your point of view and I think also the why but isn't
that position the exception from the rule? That is shouldn't the process
be optimized for the "common" case and allow the exception?
Technically the exception could be implemented by adding a further
pseudo header to the message body:
Another technical solution could be as noted in a different mail in this
thread to allow submitters to set a global flag that says don't
automatically subscribe me on participation.