On 29-09-2007 14:11:54 +0000, Duncan wrote: > Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted > [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 29 Sep 2007 > 12:01:39 +0200: > > > On 29-09-2007 02:29:21 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 09:23:21AM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: > >> > Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > > It seems that not everybody loves the new "DO NOT REPLY TO THIS > >> > > EMAIL" header at the top of every bugzie email as much as robbat2 > >> > > does. > >> > 1. if everybody hates it (full ack btw), why not remove it globally? > >> Not everybody hates it, and it's there to dissuade users from replying > >> to Bugzilla mail by hitting reply in the MUA. > >> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181172 > > > > Isn't that tackled suffiently now by setting a bogus reply-to header? > > The problem is those replies may contain information of use in fixing the > bug. If the mail gets null-spaced...
I don't see your point. If you have a mailserver running on localhost that accepts mail for /dev/null (i.e. it thinks it is a valid email address) and discards it without notice, then that's your problem. Most of the time this is not the case and an immediate reject or a bounce message is the result. > Better to warn upfront that a reply via mail isn't going to have the > intended results, AND bogus reply-to header it. I agree warning is fine. However, I think there is a correlation between people hitting reply to bugzilla mails and people not reading/paying attention to such messages. I think the annoyance of having the message does not pay off against the technical limitation of not being able to reply any more, whereas the latter is very effective and the first probably not. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
