Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstan...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:23:08PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > > (This is the same reason I generally disagree with Eric Wong about > > > preserving SMTP as the primary transmission protocol -- I've heard lots of > > > complaints both from kernel developers and especially from people trying > > > to > > > contribute to CAF about corporate policies actually making it impossible > > > to > > > submit patches -- and no, using a different mail server is not a > > > possibility > > > for them because it can be a firing offense under their IT AUP rules.) > > > > I'm not opposed to a webmail interface tailored to kernel hacking > > which does stuff like checkpatch.pl and get_maintainer.pl before > > sending (similar to your patchwork proposal and > > gitgadgetgadget). That would get around security appliances > > but SMTP would still be used in the background. > > > > Or offer full-blown HTTPS webmail + IMAP + SMTP access like any > > other webmail provider + checkpatch + get_maintainer helpers. > > Well, this is the bit where I say that it may not be allowed by corporate > rules. I see this all the time in CAF/Android world where companies > *require* that all email goes through their SMTP server so that it can be > properly logged (often for legal reasons). And it is often equally required > that any code submissions come from per...@corporate.com and not > per...@free-email-provider.com for License/CLA reasons, so setting up a > webmail server is not a solution either.
Aren't they still allowed to submit stuff via forges the same way they'd use a potential hacker-oriented webmail/SMTP/IMAP solution? Sometimes I see @username_COMPANY-type names on forges, but AFAIK it's not very common. > This is basically why SMTP sucks in my view -- and it's worthless trying to > pick fights with IT departments, because they are told to do so by lawyers. > So, I want to take SMTP out of the equation: If the open source community can fight to get GPL accepted, I don't see why we can't fight or subvert dumb corporate policies. > 1. provide a way for someone to submit a patch using a web interface (but > still in a way that From: is their corporate ID) > 2. use individual git feeds as a way to send out patches instead of always > being secondary to SMTP username-comp...@users.kernel.org could probably work if they're required to use @username_COMPANY on forges. We can also find creative ways to subvert corporate policies: For example; if their policy specifically prevents outgoing SMTP, "git imap-send" could be used. If their policy forbids using external "email" services, we'd name it "Kernel Hackers' Messaging System" or something of that sort and say we use an email bridge :> _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
