Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> 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.
Right! The bogus reply-to should either be an invalid address, in which
case the sender will realize right away that the mail did not go
anywhere, or there could be an autoresponder that tells the sender to
use bugzilla's web interface.
Or... you could keep the return address as-is, but use procmail to not
accept mail unless it is from the bugzilla system (otherwise,
autorespond as above).
Any of these would be preferable to the 3 extra lines at the top of
every email now that are not only annoying, but only useful to initiate
the few who would attempt to reply.
> 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.
Agreed. There are several technical solutions that are far more
effective and less annoying than the banner.
-Joe
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
