Re: about unique maintainer address policy
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Tommi Virtanen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 1998 at 05:44:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The reason behind requiring a single email of the form
> > <login@debian.org> was multifold; one was the database; but the
> > other, and in my opinion, more important reason was so thet there is
> > an easy address format for people to send mail to maintainers.
> >
> > I know I can send mail to schwarz@debian.org when the .de
> > address bounces (as it is for me at the moment), and that it shall
> > work.
> >
> > It would make things easier for the users.
>
> Hi. Here's a suggestion: make everyone have a single email
> user@debian.org but let them use any user-whatever@debian.org
> they want. That is, compare things after the "@" to end of string
> and from beginning to first "/-+".
[snip]
All discussion we had on the maintainer address topic until now proved,
that a lot of maintainers don't want to use the `debian.org' address for
good reasons. But your idea could probably be transfered to any other
domain too: user-whatever@domain gets compared to user@domain which is
listed in the DB.
So there are two open questions left:
1. Is this solution preferred over comparing the name in front of the
address against a field in the DB?
2. user-whatever@domain would mean all address addresses for a maintainer
are forwarded to the same system. Is this too restrictive (i.e., does
someone want different mail servers for different packages)?
It would be good if the people who want our policy to be changed in this
respect (Ian?) to tell us their opinion. I want to set up the DB ASAP and
this is the only open question that's left...
Thanks,
Chris
-- _,, Christian Schwarz
/ o \__ schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
! ___; schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
\ /
\\\______/ ! PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
\ / http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
-.-.,---,-,-..---,-,-.,----.-.-
"DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN!"
Reply to: