On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 17:07 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 01:03:52AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > 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. > > If a user submits a bug report then doesn't it make sense that the user > would want to be able to be kept informed of any progress updates? Yes, but we don't know whether to believe that address. > Or an option in reportbug to do so, turned on by default. It could put > an X- header in the email. > > That way users of reportbug can choose to be 'spammed' or not. This is still unconfirmed opt-in <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-in_email#Unconfirmed_opt-in>. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Larkinson's Law: All laws are basically false.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part